Why the Democrats are making a big mistake by obsessing over Russia

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...r-putin-215224

Treasonous, destructive, corrupt Trash, Pence, the entourage MUST be run out of office ASAP.

Only the Democrats can push that objective.

why ?
so far their is NO evidence for them to be kicked out of office. There was a lot of lots of evidence against Hillary and all she got was a slap on the rest from the former fbi.
they keep digging but so far no criminal evidence. They are hoping and trying to convince the people there is with their media but so far nothing

what the dems should realize is that the public is also generally disinterested in russiagate. if they want to find a way to justify impeachment they would have to look for evidence of policy making primarily implemented for the sake of personal profit to trump. in the end, the fate of the GOP and trump from 2018-20120 will hinge upon the economy, jobs and healthcare.

economy, jobs and healthcare in that order correct

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjv

public is also generally disinterested in russiagate

---

link? or just your Trash-fellating opinion of blind Repug loyalty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjv

what the dems should realize is that the public is also generally disinterested in russiagate.

---

Do you have a source on that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjv

what the dems should realize is that the public is also generally disinterested in russiagate. if they want to find a way to justify impeachment they would have to look for evidence of policy making primarily implemented for the sake of personal profit to trump. in the end, the fate of the GOP and trump from 2018-20120 will hinge upon the economy, jobs and healthcare.

---

does everything have to be about PR?

To see here there is nothing.

Спасибо.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

Do you have a source on that?

---

what i can say is economic related problems represent 21% of the most important issues for the public and then healthcare, immigration, race relations and all other non-political leadership/national security concerns represent another 55%. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most...t-problem.aspx

i mean, the dems could take the approach that it means more or could lead to a smoking gun and therefore is worth investing time and energy into, but it's a calculated risk and nowhere near being a certainty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ducks

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...r-putin-215224

---

good article and interesting to see Politico is now backing away from the story and preparing Dems for the let down. doesn't look like anyone has read it yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

does everything have to be about PR?

---

i'm not an election expert but i would think image counts for a lot and there is no doubt that the dems are suffering from an image problem (and that is from within its own ranks).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjv

i'm not an election expert but i would think image counts for a lot and there is no doubt that the dems are suffering from an image problem (and that is from within its own ranks).

---

oh, if you're talking about getting votes yeah... i was thinking about doing an effective job, etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjv

what i can say is economic related problems represent 21% of the most important issues for the public and then healthcare, immigration, race relations and all other non-political leadership/national security concerns represent another 55%. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most...t-problem.aspx

i mean, the dems could take the approach that it means more or could lead to a smoking gun and therefore is worth investing time and energy into, but it's a calculated risk and nowhere near being a certainty.

---

Even Repugs can't address the economy (the lower 4 quintiles), or healtcare, or ANYTHING because Trash's FUCKING DISASTER is a black hole.

What are the Dems supposed to do? they can't pass anything in Congress, anyway.

The most patriotic, most pressing priority for the Dems and the country is for the Congressional Dems to flush Trash's complete Exec down the toilet, A S A P.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ducks

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...r-putin-215224

---

There are, here and there, warning signs that maybe the Democrats might want to, you know, focus on their own political problems. In April, the Democratic National Committee had its worst fundraising month in nearly a decade. As was seen in crucial states during the 2016 contest, African-American turnout remains a serious concern. The voters of admittedly red-state Montana just elected a guy who has been charged with assault instead of a (seemingly) competent Democrat with a clean police record. Reporters who actually spoke to voters in places like Ohio seem to have found some shrugs over the Russia frenzy. More than two-thirds of voters, according to at least one ABC News/Washington Post poll (if you believe polls anymore), said the Democrats were “out of touch.” The Democrats—yes, the Democrats—scored lower than Trump and the Republicans on that issue.

Trump, meanwhile, is trying to regain his message on border security, tax cuts, Obamacare repeal and telling off Europeans to their faces. You know, the kind of politically incorrect, occasionally rude things that actually ended up helping him win the election. A few weeks ago, a sociologist at Columbia University flatly predicted that Trump will be reelected in 2020. In an even crueler blow to the Democrats, an ABC poll released in April found that Trump would beat Hillary Clinton in the popular vote if there were a hypothetical rematch. :lol (A rematch that at least one humble genius long ago predicted.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Even Repugs can't address the economy (the lower 4 quintiles), or healtcare, or ANYTHING because Trash's FUCKING DISASTER is a black hole.

What are the Dems supposed to do? they can't pass anything in Congress, anyway.

The most patriotic, most pressing priority for the Dems and the country is for the Congressional Dems to flush Trash's complete Exec down the toilet, A S A P.

---

for clarification, by what process do you refer to when you write "to flush Trash's complete Exec down the toilet, A S A P."?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjv

what i can say is economic related problems represent 21% of the most important issues for the public and then healthcare, immigration, race relations and all other non-political leadership/national security concerns represent another 55%. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most...t-problem.aspx

i mean, the dems could take the approach that it means more or could lead to a smoking gun and therefore is worth investing time and energy into, but it's a calculated risk and nowhere near being a certainty.

---

It looks like the #1 problem people are most concerned with is hating government and leadership, followed closely by healthcare. These are both things Trump is extremely unpopular on. I don't think you can divorce Russia from the first, considering this is the major scandal in Trump's presidency so far. And in the second case I'd be pretty surprised to hear people who hate him for trying to boot a bunch of people off their insurance would give him the benefit of the doubt on Russia when he has already proved to be a boldfaced liar on healthcare.

Shocker.

Someone whose political party would have the most to lose from looking like treasonous jackasses thinks that the issue that makes them look like treasonous jackasses should be ignored. :wow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Trump, meanwhile, is trying to regain his message on border security, tax cuts, Obamacare repeal and telling off Europeans to their faces. You know, the kind of politically incorrect, occasionally rude things that actually ended up helping him win the election. A few weeks ago, a sociologist at Columbia University flatly predicted that Trump will be reelected in 2020. In an even crueler blow to the Democrats, an ABC poll released in April found that Trump would beat Hillary Clinton in the popular vote if there were a hypothetical rematch. :lol (A rematch that at least one humble genius long ago predicted.)

---

Remember when Trump's message was everyone was going to have great and cheap healthcare, and how he wasn't going to cut Medicaid at all? (which is how he sold himself as not the typical Republican)

I can't imagine that Trump's message resonates with anyone but Trumpers now that he's not running against Clinton any more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

Remember when Trump's message was everyone was going to have great and cheap healthcare, and how he wasn't going to cut Medicaid at all? (which is how he sold himself as not the typical Republican)

I can't imagine that Trump's message resonates with anyone but Trumpers now that he's not running against Clinton any more.

---

What is the Dem's message now besides RUSSIA?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

It looks like the #1 problem people are most concerned with is hating government and leadership, followed closely by healthcare. These are both things Trump is extremely unpopular on. I don't think you can divorce Russia from the first, considering this is the major scandal in Trump's presidency so far. And in the second case I'd be pretty surprised to hear people who hate him for trying to boot a bunch of people for insurance would give him the benefit of the doubt on Russia when he has already proved to be a boldfaced liar on healthcare.

---

let's assume, just for the sake of your argument, that one cannot divorce the issue of government and leadership from Russia (because this is just an assumption, after all) and that the media with the support of many democrats choose to make this a matter of great importance, so much so that it takes up most of the mainstream coverage. what are the repercussions for the democrats if this leads to nothing? obviously, the flip side is certain but what would the public think if it leads to nothing? will they just consider it a case of the democrats doing their due diligence or will the effort be looked upon unfavorably (particularly by those demographics that could sway the election)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

What is the Dem's message now besides RUSSIA?

---

Republicans are going to take away your health insurance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

What is the Dem's message now besides RUSSIA?

---

Republicans hate the poor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

What is the Dem's message now besides RUSSIA?

---

Democrats want a living wage, so people can support themselves through work.

The way I see it is that the media blows everything out of proportion so I'm tone deaf to anything they have to say. With so many people who utterly despise Trump, if there was any evidence on his collusion with Russia, don't you think it would have been leaked by now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Republicans are going to take away your health insurance.

---

... and Medicaid, and Medicare, and $10B from Federal school projects, poisoning of surface waters, etc.

So much low-hanging fruit for the Dems to FUCK the Repugs with, but Repugs can always count on 40% no matter how badly they fuck that 40%.

there was nothing to the clinton sex scandal in 2000 either but people were sick enough about it that they voted in bush despite clintons incredible economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjv

let's assume, just for the sake of your argument, that one cannot divorce the issue of government and leadership from Russia (because this is just an assumption, after all) and that the media with the support of many democrats choose to make this a matter of great importance, so much so that it takes up most of the mainstream coverage.

---

I don't understand this sinister motive you're ascribing to the media. Are they not supposed to report when they get things leaked to them by people in Trump's administration? Trump likes to claim fake news and pretend the media is so biased against him, but are they supposed to sit on news told by sources they consider reliable? Why would this not be an enormous story?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjv

lwhat are the repercussions for the democrats if this leads to nothing? obviously, the flip side is certain but what would the public think if it leads to nothing? will they just consider it a case of the democrats doing their due diligence or will the effort be looked upon unfavorably (particularly by those demographics that could sway the election)?

---

A few months ago because of that flip side I thought the DNC should stop focusing on Russia. I didn't really believe anything was there between Trump and Putin other than two groups working separately but towards a common goal in the election, and there is no crime on Trump's side in that case. But I thought that because Trump didn't seem to be tampering in the investigation early on. Ever since he fired Comey it has looked like a cover-up. And some Republicans in his staff seem to know it, and keep leaking to the press. It's hard to look at his people turning on him while trying to keep Pence out of the fray and not think there is something there. I don't think the GOP would have the balls to try to engage in this slow coup that seems like it's happening right now if Trump was squeaky clean on Russia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmt

The way I see it is that the media blows everything out of proportion so I'm tone deaf to anything they have to say.

---

:cry It's the media's fault for reporting shit Trump's own party leaks to them :cry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

I don't understand this sinister motive you're ascribing to the media. Are they not supposed to report when they get things leaked to them by people in Trump's administration? Trump likes to claim fake news and pretend the media is so biased against him, but are they supposed to sit on news told by sources they consider reliable? Why would this not be an enormous story?



A few months ago because of that flip side I thought the DNC should stop focusing on Russia. I didn't really believe anything was there between Trump and Putin other than two groups working separately but towards a common goal in the election, and there is no crime on Trump's side in that case. But I thought that because Trump didn't seem to be tampering in the investigation early on. Ever since he fired Comey it has looked like a cover-up. And some Republicans in his staff seem to know it, and keep leaking to the press. It's hard to look at his people turning on him while trying to keep Pence out of the fray and not think there is something there. I don't think the GOP would have the balls to try to engage in this slow coup that seems like it's happening right now if Trump was squeaky clean on Russia.

---

i don't think i intentionally subscribed any sinister motive to the media. i personally think the media does fall into what chomsky referred to as the "propaganda model" but that's a different discussion altogether. as to your second response, i see what you are saying but there are of course, other possibilities one of which that this is just the GOP going through the motions. i do agree that trump has often made remarks that seem to implicate himself in some sort of wrongdoing, but i think it is just as likely to be more of a concern with suspect business ventures or tax issues that could be dug up as a result of any russian investigation.

what exactly would be the "big mistake"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

I don't understand this sinister motive you're ascribing to the media. Are they not supposed to report when they get things leaked to them by people in Trump's administration? Trump likes to claim fake news and pretend the media is so biased against him, but are they supposed to sit on news told by sources they consider reliable? Why would this not be an enormous story?



A few months ago because of that flip side I thought the DNC should stop focusing on Russia. I didn't really believe anything was there between Trump and Putin other than two groups working separately but towards a common goal in the election, and there is no crime on Trump's side in that case. But I thought that because Trump didn't seem to be tampering in the investigation early on. Ever since he fired Comey it has looked like a cover-up. And some Republicans in his staff seem to know it, and keep leaking to the press. It's hard to look at his people turning on him while trying to keep Pence out of the fray and not think there is something there. I don't think the GOP would have the balls to try to engage in this slow coup that seems like it's happening right now if Trump was squeaky clean on Russia.

---

McCain and Graham started the slow coup before he even took office. Trump in on an island trying to fend of the Dems, Obama holdovers in the WH and IC, the neverTrump GOP's, and the media. That's a huge group of entrenched people that do not want to lose power. The entire Russia story is one huge tantrum that will soon come to an embarrassing end for those who pushed it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmt

The way I see it is that the media blows everything out of proportion so I'm tone deaf to anything they have to say. With so many people who utterly despise Trump, if there was any evidence on his collusion with Russia, don't you think it would have been leaked by now?

---

Leaks = someone else's information

Who is going to leak something that potentially lands them in jail for treason or felonies for lying about contacts with foreign governments?

Conspiracies do tend to be leaky, but the first thing you see will be hints, which we seem to have plenty of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

McCain and Graham started the slow coup before he even took office. Trump in on an island trying to fend of the Dems, Obama holdovers in the WH and IC, the neverTrump GOP's, and the media. That's a huge group of entrenched people that do not want to lose power. The entire Russia story is one huge tantrum that will soon come to an embarrassing end for those who pushed it.

---

:cry Teh dems are leaking :cry
:cry All the Obama holdovers in the white house :cry
:cry Comey the loyal democrat picking on our Dear Leader :cry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

The entire Russia story is one huge tantrum that will soon come to an embarrassing end for those who pushed it.

---

You hope.

That is certainly what you are being told to believe. "Nothing to see here, move along."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

McCain and Graham started the slow coup before he even took office. Trump in on an island trying to fend of the Dems, Obama holdovers in the WH and IC, the neverTrump GOP's, and the media. That's a huge group of entrenched people that do not want to lose power. The entire Russia story is one huge tantrum that will soon come to an embarrassing end for those who pushed it.

---

Funny you should frame it that way.

What would it look like if there were a truly dangerous, ignorant president with autocratic, dictatorial tendencies?

Would members of that presidents party hold him first to account, or would it be the opposition party?

Why is there so much lying, contacts, back channel, "forgetting", etc, etc, etc, and ...
BLATANT C O V E R U P !

... if Russiagate is bullshit? :lol

All compromised, treasonous Trash and his rotten entourage have to do is come clean, tell the truth of their innocence,

but they ...

BLATANT C O V E R U P !

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

Former FBI Director James Comey will be forthcoming when he testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday morning, but he will stop short of saying President Donald Trump tried to interfere in the agency's investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn, according to an ABC News exclusive

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ducks

Former FBI Director James Comey will be forthcoming when he testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday morning, but he will stop short of saying President Donald Trump tried to interfere in the agency's investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn, according to an ABC News exclusive

---

ABC news fake, yes?

guess we find out when he testifies if they are not fake on that story

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ducks

guess we find out when he testifies if they are not fake on that story

---

Not fake when you not want fake.

понимать.

I do not watch abc news

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ducks

I do not watch abc news

---

Because fake?

because I watch cnn , fox, msnbc and go online to see news

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ducks

because I watch cnn , fox, msnbc and go online to see news

---

How do you have time to watch cable news? I thought you were always fucking at home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

You hope.

That is certainly what you are being told to believe. "Nothing to see here, move along."

---

:lol swallows up the MSM narrative
:lol tells others they are believing what they are told


I've given you multiple articles of detailed evidence, hard evidence, showing that the Russian "fingerprints" were left on purpose as a set up. The problem was it was done sloppily and was easily figured out by people that were actually skilled in the field and weren't hired by the DNC. The entire basis of your theory falls apart from the start after that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

:lol swallows up the MSM narrative
:lol tells others they are believing what they are told


I've given you multiple articles of detailed evidence, hard evidence, showing that the Russian "fingerprints" were left on purpose as a set up. The problem was it was done sloppily and was easily figured out by people that were actually skilled in the field and weren't hired by the DNC. The entire basis of your theory falls apart from the start after that.

---

Twoofers gave me "multiple articles of detailed evidence" showing 9-11 was an inside job. Yet no matter how hard they worked their angle, their material never quite said what they wanted it to.

Your articles don't get as far as you seem to think they do, sorry.

LOL "hard evidence".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Twoofers gave me "multiple articles of detailed evidence" showing 9-11 was an inside job. Yet no matter how hard they worked their angle, their material never quite said what they wanted it to.

Your articles don't get as far as you seem to think they do, sorry.

LOL "hard evidence".

---

And I'm sure you easily debunked the 9-11 truthers am I right?

The material I provided you said exactly what you didn't want to hear. You weren't able to dismiss it though, you said yourself you didn't have knowledge to properly understand the claims and evidence provided detailing the Guccifer 2.0 hack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

How do you have time to watch cable news? I thought you were always fucking at home.

---

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

How do you have time to watch cable news? I thought you were always fucking at home.

---

who said I watched news at home?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

McCain and Graham started the slow coup before he even took office. Trump in on an island trying to fend of the Dems, Obama holdovers in the WH and IC, the neverTrump GOP's, and the media. That's a huge group of entrenched people that do not want to lose power. The entire Russia story is one huge tantrum that will soon come to an embarrassing end for those who pushed it.

---

Funny you should frame it that way.

What would it look like if there were a truly dangerous, ignorant president with autocratic, dictatorial tendencies?

Would members of that presidents party hold him first to account, or would it be the opposition party?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

And I'm sure you easily debunked the 9-11 truthers am I right?

The material I provided you said exactly what you didn't want to hear. You weren't able to dismiss it though, you said yourself you didn't have knowledge to properly understand the claims and evidence provided detailing the Guccifer 2.0 hack.

---

2.0's activitities wasn't the entirety of what went on to my knowledge. The FBI itself was the first to indicate there was Russian intrusion by more than one entity. The critique itself seemed to have more than a small axe to grind, so I was left with something beyond my ability to evaluate that was very obviously pushing a specific bias. This leads me, absent an independent neutral analysis, to be somewhat skeptical of what was presented.

You have shown evidence that SOME of what went on MAY have been a nefarious inside job. This isn't what you want to hear, so you build this up into "it was definitely an inside job" in your head.

The level of evidence required to show that it was all faked is way more than you have presented so far. You yourself admit that you don't know what information may be classified.

The biggest hole in your theory is that there has been no investigation or prosecution into anyone at the DNC for faking the intrusion that I am aware of. The FBI tends to look askance at being lied to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

2.0's activitities wasn't the entirety of what went on to my knowledge. The FBI itself was the first to indicate there was Russian intrusion by more than one entity. The critique itself seemed to have more than a small axe to grind, so I was left with something beyond my ability to evaluate that was very obviously pushing a specific bias. This leads me, absent an independent neutral analysis, to be somewhat skeptical of what was presented.

You have shown evidence that SOME of what went on MAY have been a nefarious inside job. This isn't what you want to hear, so you build this up into "it was definitely an inside job" in your head.

The level of evidence required to show that it was all faked is way more than you have presented so far. You yourself admit that you don't know what information may be classified.

The biggest hole in your theory is that there has been no investigation or prosecution into anyone at the DNC for faking the intrusion that I am aware of. The FBI tends to look askance at being lied to.

---

Are you forgetting the FBI was never allowed access to the DNC server?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Are you forgetting the FBI was never allowed access to the DNC server?

---

Who initially informed the DNC that they were being hacked by the Russians?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Are you forgetting the FBI was never allowed access to the DNC server?

---

"didn't access" or "not allowed"?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_te...owdstrike.html

DNC says they were never asked. FBI says they asked at multiple levels.

Quote:

---

“The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI's Cyber Division and its Washington (DC) Field Office, the Department of Justice's National Security Division, and U.S. Attorney's Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC's computer servers,” Eric Walker, the DNC’s deputy communications director, told BuzzFeed News in an email.

---

How have you determined that the DNC outright "refused to cooperate", as opposed to was too disorganized to get their shit together, or that people at the FBI thought they had asked but really didn't?

Have you seen the responses to the FBI requests?



[edit]

Think carefully. I have a lot of experience in asking entities to produce data, I will pull the professional expertise card in evaluating your answer.

Democrats might kamikaze Trump. Sure they might eventually take him out but they will take themselves out of contention for the next several decades :lmao

All that just for one orange haired guy :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

"didn't access" or "not allowed"?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_te...owdstrike.html

DNC says they were never asked. FBI says they asked at multiple levels.


How have you determined that the DNC outright "refused to cooperate", as opposed to was too disorganized to get their shit together, or that people at the FBI thought they had asked but really didn't?

Have you seen the responses to the FBI requests?



[edit]

Think carefully. I have a lot of experience in asking entities to produce data, I will pull the professional expertise card in evaluating your answer.

---

FBI denied, straight out of Comey's mouth.

"The FBI requested direct access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) hacked computer servers but was denied, Director James Comey told lawmakers on Tuesday.

The bureau made “multiple requests at different levels,” according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a “highly respected private company” would get access and share what it found with investigators.

“We’d always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that’s possible,” Comey said, noting that he didn’t know why the DNC rebuffed the FBI’s request."

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...ed-dnc-servers

It really comes down to who you believe, the FBI or the DNC.

I'm going with the FBI as the DNC was shown to be completely corrupt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

FBI denied, straight out of Comey's mouth.

"The FBI requested direct access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) hacked computer servers but was denied, Director James Comey told lawmakers on Tuesday.

The bureau made “multiple requests at different levels,” according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a “highly respected private company” would get access and share what it found with investigators.

“We’d always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that’s possible,” Comey said, noting that he didn’t know why the DNC rebuffed the FBI’s request."

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...ed-dnc-servers

It really comes down to who you believe, the FBI or the DNC.

I'm going with the FBI as the DNC was shown to be completely corrupt.

---

So your assumption is that the FBI made really clear requests, and were told absolutely no by the DNC, and told their boss they didn't make a mistake, and that the DNC MUST be lying.

Have you seen these requests?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

FBI denied, straight out of Comey's mouth.

"The FBI requested direct access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) hacked computer servers but was denied, Director James Comey told lawmakers on Tuesday.

The bureau made “multiple requests at different levels,” according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a “highly respected private company” would get access and share what it found with investigators.

“We’d always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that’s possible,” Comey said, noting that he didn’t know why the DNC rebuffed the FBI’s request."

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...ed-dnc-servers

It really comes down to who you believe, the FBI or the DNC.

I'm going with the FBI as the DNC was shown to be completely corrupt.

---

Here is a possibility:

The FBI asked for access a few times at one or two levels, and the requests were given to the wrong people, got misrouted, or lost in the middle of election turmoil.

Then, when the higher ups wanted an update, the underlings swore up and down they made really good efforts to get access to their superiors, who briefed the director.

Would this scenario be congruent with statements from the FBI that say they were denied access, and the DNC executive says he never was asked?

How have you eliminated this potential explanation that fits the available data?

you could come up with alternate scenarios for days on end.

Like I said earlier it really comes down to who you believe the FBI or the DNC.

We witnessed the shady corruption within the DNC during the primary, I'm taking what Comey said at face value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randomguy, who asked of TSA

Here is a possibility:

The FBI asked for access a few times at one or two levels, and the requests were given to the wrong people, got misrouted, or lost in the middle of election turmoil.

Then, when the higher ups wanted an update, the underlings swore up and down they made really good efforts to get access to their superiors, who briefed the director.

Would this scenario be congruent with statements from the FBI that say they were denied access, and the DNC executive says he never was asked?

How have you eliminated this potential explanation that fits the available data?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

you could come up with alternate scenarios for days on end.

Like I said earlier it really comes down to who you believe the FBI or the DNC.

We witnessed the shady corruption within the DNC during the primary, I'm taking what Comey said at face value.

---

The answer to my question that you so studiously avoided answering is, yes, the miscommunication scenario explains the available information.

So you didn't explore any other possibility other than the one you liked that fit with your starting theory.

In my professional opinion as an auditor with thousands of hours of experience in asking for, and receiving, such access, I will tell you that the "miscommunication" scenario is far more likely than your pet "DNC has something to hide so they flatly refused to cooperate with the FBI" theory, especially since you have not bothered trying to falsify your assertion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

you could come up with alternate scenarios for days on end.

---

We can indeed.

My scenario allows for the possibility that both parties are telling the truth as they see it, and does not assume any over-arching devious motives, which your scenario does.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr...uote.png?w=640

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

We can indeed.

My scenario allows for the possibility that both parties are telling the truth as they see it, and does not assume any over-arching devious motives, which your scenario does.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr...uote.png?w=640

---

sure your scenario allows it. but it seems silly to me as the DNC had just been exposed as corrupt liars during the primaries. what makes you think they would be telling the truth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

sure your scenario allows it. but it seems silly to me as the DNC had just been exposed as corrupt liars during the primaries. what makes you think they would be telling the truth?

---

Because I have not seen any evidence to say they are not about this subject, and more importantly NEITHER HAVE YOU.

That is how it works in critical thinking land. People are telling the truth, until shown otherwise.

That is how we know for certain Trump is a lying sack of shit.

Bad News for Trump... This could get him impeached...
TRUMP RUSSIA-NEW INFORMATION
1. Trump took $35 million from Russian company Rusnano... One of the founders of the company-Vladimir Putin!!
2. Trump took a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian company called Renaissance Capital.
3. Trump sold 1/5th of all United States uranium to the Russians.
4. Trump got $145 million donated to his charity from the same Russians/shareholders of the company that he sold the uranium to.
5. Trump took millions in donations to his charity from power players in Russia like the mayor of Moscow, business tycoons and other govt officials...
JUST KIDDING!!!! All this was done by BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON and the CLINTON FOUNDATION! Lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

Bad News for Trump... This could get him impeached...
TRUMP RUSSIA-NEW INFORMATION
1. Trump took $35 million from Russian company Rusnano... One of the founders of the company-Vladimir Putin!!
2. Trump took a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian company called Renaissance Capital.
3. Trump sold 1/5th of all United States uranium to the Russians.
4. Trump got $145 million donated to his charity from the same Russians/shareholders of the company that he sold the uranium to.
5. Trump took millions in donations to his charity from power players in Russia like the mayor of Moscow, business tycoons and other govt officials...
JUST KIDDING!!!! All this was done by BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON and the CLINTON FOUNDATION! Lol

---

Great job Chris.
We already knew the Clinton's get money from many foreign sources.
So when Trump releases HIS tax returns... Wait a sec... Something to hide?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

So when Trump releases HIS tax returns... Wait a sec... Something to hide?

---

Is this all you need to embrace the Donald?

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2014/0...il-crying1.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

sold 1/5th of all United States uranium to the Russians.

---

lets talk about this one for a bit.

1) who are the russians you speak of? is this the russian government?

2) can any of this american uranium be transported to russia?

3) can the government of russia use any of this uranium?

4) did clinton have the power to veto or approve the deal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

Bad News for Trump... This could get him impeached...
TRUMP RUSSIA-NEW INFORMATION
1. Trump took $35 million from Russian company Rusnano... One of the founders of the company-Vladimir Putin!!
2. Trump took a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian company called Renaissance Capital.
3. Trump sold 1/5th of all United States uranium to the Russians.
4. Trump got $145 million donated to his charity from the same Russians/shareholders of the company that he sold the uranium to.
5. Trump took millions in donations to his charity from power players in Russia like the mayor of Moscow, business tycoons and other govt officials...
JUST KIDDING!!!! All this was done by BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON and the CLINTON FOUNDATION! Lol

---

Chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON and the CLINTON FOUNDATION! Lol

---

*ding*

Trash president, not Hillary nor Bill.

and no links provided. 4chan, or other paranoid rightwing conspiracies assholes, maybe?

Comey says Pence was aware of Flynn problems as early as the transition, which means Pence lied

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017...tail=emaildksc

pence is a liar

...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

Is this all you need to embrace the Donald?

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2014/0...il-crying1.gif

---

Embrace him.
You are doing fine suckling off his breasts.
Im not needed here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thread

Chris

---

I bet you look mighty good to Chris in that skimpy cheerleading outfit.

Quote:

---

COMEY: The first cyber — there was all kinds of cyber intrusions going on all the time. The first Russian-connected cyber intrusion I became aware of in the late summer of 2015.

BURR: And in that time frame, there were more than the DNC and the D triple C that were targets?

COMEY: Correct, a massive effort to target government and nongovernmental, near governmental agencies like nonprofits.

BURR: What would be the estimate of how many entities out there the Russians specifically targeted in that time frame?

COMEY: It's hundreds. I suppose it could be more than 1,000, but it's at least hundreds.

BURR: When did you become aware that data had been exfiltrated?

COMEY: I'm not sure exactly. I think either late '15 or early '16.

BURR: And did you, the director of the FBI, have conversations with the last administration about the risk that this posed?

COMEY: Yes.

BURR: And share with us, if you will, what actions they took.

COMEY: Well, the FBI had already undertaken an effort to notify all the victims, and that's what we consider the entities attacked as part of this massive spear-phishing campaign so we notified them in an effort to disrupt what might be ongoing, and then there was a series of continuing interactions with entities through the rest of '15 into '16, and then throughout '16, the administration was trying to decide how to respond to the intrusion activity that it saw.

---

The only mistake is thinking that Republicans care about the country more than they care about their political party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

pence is a liar

---

COMEY IS!

grrrrrr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

The only mistake is thinking that Democrats care about the country more than they care about their political party.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chucho

"democrats bad"

---

uh, ok.

What is funny is that if there were a Democrat accused of doing what Trump is, you would be screaming bloody murder to get an investigation.

Do you think that the potential interference should be fully investigated, even if it implicates people close to President Trump?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

*republicans bad. ignore the crimes of our side, pretend moral superiority. repeat*

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

uh, ok.

What is funny is that if there were a Democrat accused of doing what Trump is, you would be screaming bloody murder to get an investigation.

Do you think that the potential interference should be fully investigated, even if it implicates people close to President Trump?

---

The funny thing is, and you pretend it didn't happen, is that already happened. It happened with Comey Ep. 1: The "Matter". And 6 months later, we are finding Obama and Co. were doing basically the same thing you and yours have come to string Trump on, except that we also know Obama was wiretapping us all and spying on us all, but...full circle. You're going to stand by yours, selectively pick what to ignore and then point your grubby mitts to the other side of the fence and shit on them for the same offense.

You're doing what you say the Right is doing, except they are wrong for doing it because you're doing it. That's all you're saying, no matter how you frame it and responding to questions with questions or trying to disprove someone by asking questions isn't changing the basic gist of your activity on these threads. You're just semen-shielding and deflecting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chucho

Obama and Co..

---

*ding*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chucho

...

---

uh, ok.

What is funny is that if there were a Democrat accused of doing what Trump is, you would be screaming bloody murder to get an investigation.

Do you think that the potential interference should be fully investigated, even if it implicates people close to President Trump?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chucho

The funny thing is, and you pretend it didn't happen, is that already happened. It happened with Comey Ep. 1: The "Matter". And 6 months later, we are finding Obama and Co. were doing basically the same thing you and yours have come to string Trump on, except that we also know Obama was wiretapping us all and spying on us all, but...full circle. You're going to stand by yours, selectively pick what to ignore and then point your grubby mitts to the other side of the fence and shit on them for the same offense.

You're doing what you say the Right is doing, except they are wrong for doing it because you're doing it. That's all you're saying, no matter how you frame it and responding to questions with questions or trying to disprove someone by asking questions isn't changing the basic gist of your activity on these threads. You're just semen-shielding and deflecting.

---

I think any criminal wrongdoing by the Obama administration should be investigated. If someone did something illegal, that should be investigated.

See how easy that was?

The fact that you can't, or won't, bring yourself to say the obvious, decent thing, i.e. "investigate the people who lied about meeting the Russians to see if any laws were broken", pretty much makes my case for me, that I am in fact morally and ethically superior to you.

I will happily await your saying that to be contradicted. Prove me wrong.

The Real Scandal Is Still Russia

Donald Trump is trying to give the Russians everything they want. That’s scarier than his possible obstruction of justice

No one of these triumphs resulted directly from Putin pushing a button and having Trump act.

They reflect a more subtle success, borne of Russian influence upstream in the Washington ecosystem.

Russian intelligence agencies successfully interfered with and influenced the U.S. election, according to a consensus position of the U.S. intelligence community.

By subtly influencing the election outcome,

cultivating relationships with top Trump officials, and

creating distrust of core U.S. national security institutions like the CIA—including among the president himself—

Russia set in motion a complex chain reaction that is now paying off for the Russian regime.

Whether they actively colluded with the Trump campaign or not, the Russians got what they wanted:

a president who was more friendly to their interests, and more pliable in their hands too.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...they_want.html

Trash wanted Comey/FBI to drop the Flynn case BECAUSE Trash and his entourage has been compromised by Pootin.

As the above article says, chasing obstruction of justice charges is superb sideshow distracting from WHY Trash obstructed justice.

Pootin "turned" the whore Trash by buying his cheap, venal, bankrupt ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

The Real Scandal Is Still Russia

Donald Trump is trying to give the Russians everything they want. That’s scarier than his possible obstruction of justice

No one of these triumphs resulted directly from Putin pushing a button and having Trump act.

They reflect a more subtle success, borne of Russian influence upstream in the Washington ecosystem.

Russian intelligence agencies successfully interfered with and influenced the U.S. election, according to a consensus position of the U.S. intelligence community.

By subtly influencing the election outcome,

cultivating relationships with top Trump officials, and

creating distrust of core U.S. national security institutions like the CIA—including among the president himself—

Russia set in motion a complex chain reaction that is now paying off for the Russian regime.

Whether they actively colluded with the Trump campaign or not, the Russians got what they wanted:

a president who was more friendly to their interests, and more pliable in their hands too.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...they_want.html

Trash wanted Comey/FBI to drop the Flynn case BECAUSE Trash and his entourage has been compromised by Pootin.

As the above article says, chasing obstruction of justice charges is superb sideshow distracting from WHY Trash obstructed justice.

Pootin "turned" the whore Trash by buying his cheap, venal, bankrupt ass.

---

That slate article sums it up nicely. They got what they wanted.

:cry I'm serious you goys it's really Russia! :cry

:lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Do you think that the potential interference should be fully investigated, even if it implicates people close to President Trump?

---

Yes it should be fully investigated and it is being fully investigated.

When nothing comes of it what will you want investigated next? What is the 3.5 year investigation plan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I think any criminal wrongdoing by the Obama administration should be investigated. If someone did something illegal, that should be investigated.

See how easy that was?

The fact that you can't, or won't, bring yourself to say the obvious, decent thing, i.e. "investigate the people who lied about meeting the Russians to see if any laws were broken", pretty much makes my case for me, that I am in fact morally and ethically superior to you.

I will happily await your saying that to be contradicted. Prove me wrong.

---

I just said it should be investigated so we are both sitting equal morally and ethically.

Now, do you think Hillary Clinton should have been charged for the laundry list of Federal offenses Comey listed off concerning her handling of classified material at the highest levels?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Yes it should be fully investigated and it is being fully investigated.

When nothing comes of it what will you want investigated next? What is the 3.5 year investigation plan?

---

Then you have to move on to conflicts of interest and potential money laundering. You know, that stuff you have been avoiding like the plague?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

I just said it should be investigated so we are both sitting equal morally and ethically.

Now, do you think Hillary Clinton should have been charged for the laundry list of Federal offenses Comey listed off concerning her handling of classified material at the highest levels?

---

If the evidence warrants it, yes.

Remind me again if the investigators made a determination on that point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

If the evidence warrants it, yes.

Remind me again if the investigators made a determination on that point.

---

The evidence overwhelmingly warranted it. The investigators were clearly being pressured by the WH and DOJ. More will be coming out on this soon I have heard, we got a little crumb from Comey yesterday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Hillary Clinton

---

*ding*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

[Clintons should be prosecuted if] the evidence warrants it, yes.

Remind me again if the investigators made a determination on that point.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

The evidence overwhelmingly warranted it. The investigators were clearly being pressured by the WH and DOJ. More will be coming out on this soon I have heard, we got a little crumb from Comey yesterday.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

I'm taking what Comey said at face value.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Comey

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

---

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pr...-e-mail-system

I think I will take the words of experienced investigators and lawyers over your evaluation of the evidence you never saw. Bullshit it did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Then you have to move on to conflicts of interest and potential money laundering. You know, that stuff you have been avoiding like the plague?

---

Keep throwing shit against the wall. Eventually something will stick.

http://www.investors.com/politics/ib...investigation/

majority of Americans doubt the 2016 presidential election outcome was influenced by Russia and nearly half agree that the current investigation is a "political 'witch hunt' aimed at getting the president impeached," according to the latest IBD/TIPP Poll.

Moreover, despite growing talk among Trump's political foes of possible impeachment, 65% called such talk "premature" while 32% said it was "appropriate." However, just 4% of Republicans agreed that impeachment talk was appropriate, compared to 60% of Democrats.

The results of the national poll of 903 adults, taken from May 30 to June 6, strongly suggest that many Americans see the current investigation into alleged Trump campaign ties to Russian government officials as largely political and driven by sensational media coverage.

"A majority of the public feels that the news media are putting the cart before the horse regarding discussions of alleged collusion between President Trump and Russia," said Raghavan Mayur, president of TechnoMetrica, who directed the IBD/TIPP Poll.

"The American people perceive that, in the court of the media, Trump is guilty until proven innocent," Mayur added. "Since the election, the media have persistently questioned the president's legitimacy on various fronts, from Michigan's close vote count and Russian interference to Trump's mental capacity, and, presently, alleged collusion with Russia," Mayur added. "So far, the public has not been swayed."

Other IBD/TIPP Poll news: Trump's approval drops as his spending, tax cut agenda gain wide support.

Despite the media's saturation coverage, some 52% of respondents said the outcome of the 2016 presidential election was "not influenced" by Russia, while just 39% said it was.

The responses split along predictable party lines, with 77% of Democrats saying Russians influenced the election, but just 6% of Republicans in agreement. Among independents, only 31% saw a Russian influence on the election outcome.

Americans overwhelmingly blame the media for the hoopla surrounding the Russian investigation, with 57% agreeing that "the media has prematurely declared President Trump and his allies guilty of collusion with Russia" despite a lack of evidence. Just 39% disagreed.

And once again, the partisan split was notable, with 83% of Republicans agreeing that the media had displayed bias, but just 32% of Democrats saying the same. Some 62% of independents saw media bias in the coverage of the Russia investigation.

Perhaps surprisingly, the age group that saw the greatest media effect was the youngest — the 18-to-24 year-old age group, with 72% agreeing that the media had essentially treated Trump and his campaign officials as guilty in covering the Russia issue without providing evidence. All of the other age groups were in the 53% to 59% range.

Meanwhile, some 47% agreed with the statement that "the investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia is a political 'witch hunt' aimed at getting the president impeached." But 48% disagreed.

Even so, 21% of Democrats agreed that the investigation was a witch hunt, along with 75% of Republicans and 51% of independents.

On Thursday, former FBI Director James Comey, whom President Obama hired in 2013 and President Trump fired in May, is scheduled to testify to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence about the events surrounding the FBI's investigation into Trump campaign officials' ties to Russia — especially those of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who served as Trump's national security advisor for a month before being fired for misleading Vice President Mike Pence about Flynn's past contacts with Russian officials.

In prepared testimony slated for delivery Thursday before Congress, Comey once again said that Trump had expressed his hope in an Oval Office meeting on Feb. 14 that Comey would end his investigation into Flynn because "he is a good guy and has been through a lot."

But Trump neither ordered Comey to end his Flynn investigation nor implied he would retaliate if he didn't. Still, Comey said, he found his contacts with Trump troubling.

Comey also made clear that Trump didn't appear to be trying to get him to stop the much broader FBI investigation into White House ties to Russia, as some in the media have suggested.

"I had understood the president to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December," Comey says in his prepared text. "I did not understand the president to be talking about the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to his campaign."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pr...-e-mail-system

I think I will take the words of experienced investigators and lawyers over your evaluation of the evidence you never saw. Bullshit it did.

---

Can you find the word "intent" in the laws concerning the handling of classified information?