Watch: CNN Cuts Tulsi Gabbard Off as She Lays Out the Inconvenient Facts of the Russia Hoax

[iluvatar5150]

Perhaps, but it was the Democrats who first took the opportunity to muddy the waters in 2016. The word "interference" was bandied about with the word "stolen" and "illegitimate" by a willing and complicit media to get people to believe that Russia had tampered with vote tallies. And it worked. 67% of Democrats, 41% of Independents, and 17% of Republicans believe it was either "absolutely" or "probably" true that Russia tampered with vote tallies to get Trump elected.

There was a legitimate fear that they were going to do that and they did direct attacks at a lot of voting systems. They also did meddle in the election through more “normal” means like propaganda and social engineering, so muddying of those waters was inevitable.

 

[NxNW]

Perhaps, but it was the Democrats who first took the opportunity to intentionally muddy the waters in 2016. The word "interference" was bandied about with the word "stolen" and "illegitimate" by a willing and complicit media to get people to believe that Russia had tampered with vote tallies. And it worked. 67% of Democrats, 41% of Independents, and 17% of Republicans believed it was either "absolutely" or "probably" true that Russia tampered with vote tallies to get Trump elected.

None of that would be a crime.

 

[probinson]

There was a legitimate fear that they were going to do that and they did direct attacks at a lot of voting systems. They also did meddle in the election through more “normal” means like propaganda and social engineering, so muddying of those waters was inevitable.

Politicians are nothing if not opportunists. What better way to rile up the base than to convince them (with no evidence) that vote tallies had been tampered with using vague assertions of the election being "stolen". It's brilliant propaganda. It makes your audience believe what you want them to believe (that vote tallies had been tampered with) without directly stating it, which gives you plausible deniability when someone questions why more than 2/3 of your party believed that vote tallies had been tampered with. "Well, gee, I have no idea why people thought that. I mean, I never actually said that." And the party loyal will lap it up like crazy.

Meanwhile, it's pretty clear to objective, critical-thinking people that the Democrats were more than happy to let their voters believe the lies about vote tampering that they were indirectly pushing. And now, almost 9 years later, we have to listen to people pretend like they didn't know exactly what they were doing. Is it any wonder the Democrat party is in such dire straits?

 

[probinson]

None of that would be a crime.

I agree. I think the whole aspect of attempting to prosecute Obama (or anyone else) over this is absurd on its face. But I just can't take this whole innocent act by Democrats, who knew darn right well what they were doing. They WANTED people to believe that Trump was an illegitimate president who had stolen the election with the help of Russia changing vote tallies.

 

[probinson]

There was a legitimate fear that they were going to do that and they did direct attacks at a lot of voting systems. They also did meddle in the election through more “normal” means like propaganda and social engineering, so muddying of those waters was inevitable.

That article is amusing. It wants me to believe that Russia hacked into election systems to change votes, but then decided not to at the last minute. Why? Change of heart? Suddenly they grew a conscious and realized just how wrong it was? Why would Russia go to all the trouble to hack into an election system and then decide NOT to change any vote tallies. Specifically, I'm talking about this paragraph:

It concluded that while there was no evidence that any votes were changed in actual voting machines, “Russian cyberactors were in a position to delete or change voter data” in the Illinois voter database. The committee found no evidence that they did so.​

​

This whole thing is prima facie nonsense. At the end of the day, the losing party in our elections have just been sore losers as of late.

 

[Postvieww]

Lols. Trump was very involved with Epstein in the past. He could release the Epstein files now, but he makes excuses and accusations instead.

It's funny how many people believe that Biden would act like Trump. This is just projection.

He is tied. He tied himself to his former pal.

No facts here just Trump hatred. Trump actually reported Epstein to the authorities. He also was the only to respond to a lawyer who represented abuse girls by Epstein. The lawyer said he was very cooperative and gave accurate information to the lawyer. You just cansee truth because hatred for Trump is clouding judgment.

 

[Postvieww]

Those are allegations, and "you just wait and see". What facts do you have?

Obama asked for a ICA assessment where the reality that Russia was indeed interfering in US elections for the benefit of Trump was in fact true. It was a concern given to use by our Five allied nation, and again proven to be true. I suggest you go ahead and line up to kick the football while Lucy holds it for you. It will lead to the same results as always.

This just shows you have no grasp of the facts now coming to light!

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

No facts here just Trump hatred. Trump actually reported Epstein to the authorities. He also was the only to respond to a lawyer who represented abuse girls by Epstein. The lawyer said he was very cooperative and gave accurate information to the lawyer. You just cansee truth because hatred for Trump is clouding judgment.

I don't hate Trump. I just think he is an obnoxious boor. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Vambram]

Newly Declassified Appendix to Durham Report Sheds Additional Light on Clinton Campaign Plan to Falsely Tie Trump to Russia and FBI’s Failure to Investigate | U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) today is making public the...

www.grassley.senate.gov

 

[Vambram]

Tulsi Gabbard Issues Statement After Releasing Whistleblower Testimony — Insider Says They Were "THREATENED" to Back Obama-Directed Phony Russia Narrative | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft

A newly declassified document released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Monday revealed explosive whistleblower testimony detailing how the Obama administration manipulated intelligence assessments to delegitimize President Donald Trump before he even took office.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[iluvatar5150]

Politicians are nothing if not opportunists. What better way to rile up the base than to convince them (with no evidence) that vote tallies had been tampered with using vague assertions of the election being "stolen". It's brilliant propaganda. It makes your audience believe what you want them to believe (that vote tallies had been tampered with) without directly stating it, which gives you plausible deniability when someone questions why more than 2/3 of your party believed that vote tallies had been tampered with. "Well, gee, I have no idea why people thought that. I mean, I never actually said that." And the party loyal will lap it up like crazy.

Meanwhile, it's pretty clear to objective, critical-thinking people that the Democrats were more than happy to let their voters believe the lies about vote tampering that they were indirectly pushing. And now, almost 9 years later, we have to listen to people pretend like they didn't know exactly what they were doing. Is it any wonder the Democrat party is in such dire straits?

Obviously, you can't do these sort of things half-hearted. If you're going to sell a lie about vote rigging, you have to commit to the lie, like the Republicans did in 2016.

That article is amusing. It wants me to believe that Russia hacked into election systems to change votes, but then decided not to at the last minute. Why? Change of heart? Suddenly they grew a conscious and realized just how wrong it was? Why would Russia go to all the trouble to hack into an election system and then decide NOT to change any vote tallies. Specifically, I'm talking about this paragraph:

It concluded that while there was no evidence that any votes were changed in actual voting machines, “Russian cyberactors were in a position to delete or change voter data” in the Illinois voter database. The committee found no evidence that they did so.​

​

This whole thing is prima facie nonsense. At the end of the day, the losing party in our elections have just been sore losers as of late.

It's not "the article" making the claims. It was reporting on the findings of a bipartisan report from the Senate Intelligence Committee. If you check the date on the article, you'll see it came out in 2019, in the middle of Mitch McConnell's tenure as majority leader.

 

[probinson]

Obviously, you can't do these sort of things half-hearted. If you're going to sell a lie about vote rigging, you have to commit to the lie, like the Republicans did in 2016.

I think you mean 2020. Democrats committed to the lie in 2016, and Republicans committed to the lie in 2020. Both parties claimed (with no evidence) that the election had been STOLEN!!!! from them.

It's not "the article" making the claims. It was reporting on the findings of a bipartisan report from the Senate Intelligence Committee.

I don't really care who is making the claim. When one examines the claim critically, it's highly questionable.

Tell me, why do you think Russia would hack into an election system only to NOT change any votes? I'm genuinely curious to hear why you think Russia would do that.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I think you mean 2020.

derp, yes.

I don't really care who is making the claim. When one examines the claim critically, it brings to mind quite a few questions.

Tell me, why do you think Russia would hack into an election system only to NOT change any votes? I'm genuinely curious to hear why you think Russia would do that.

I don't claim to understand the ins and outs of espionage. My understanding of Russia's activities on this matter over the last several years is that they've been less interested in putting their thumb on the scales in a certain way than they've been in sowing general discord. From what I recall, it's not accurate to say that they were even-handed in their support of both Trump and his opponents, but they weren't entirely one-sided either, and did try to rile up folks on both sides.

It's hard to argue that these break-ins weren't disruptive to our election and the public's confidence in it. It's become one of the single-most important factors in our politics over the last decade. If the goal was to stir dissension, then it was wildly successful.

But if their interest was in actually penetrating election systems, getting in just to poke around can still be a worthwhile exercise. There's plenty to learn from something like that, such as weaknesses and responses. There have been plenty of action movies where the bank robbers/terrorists call in a false alarm so they can observe the police response. Next time, they might have a better idea of how to do something serious and go undetected.

 

[probinson]

I don't claim to understand the ins and outs of espionage. My understanding of Russia's activities on this matter over the last several years is that they've been less interested in putting their thumb on the scales in a certain way than they've been in sowing general discord. From what I recall, it's not accurate to say that they were even-handed in their support of both Trump and his opponents, but they weren't entirely one-sided either, and did try to rile up folks on both sides.

Which is pretty easy to do, since party loyalty trumps critical thinking for many people.

But if their interest was in actually penetrating election systems,

Which is what the report said they did. They were in the system and did.... nothing?!

getting in just to poke around can still be a worthwhile exercise.

I suppose so. But if they had access and wanted to muck around with he election results, if they were in the system, I have a hard time understanding why they wouldn't.

There have been plenty of action movies where the bank robbers/terrorists call in a false alarm so they can observe the police response.

Yes, there have. Also for future reference, action movies are works of fiction.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I suppose so. But if they had access and wanted to muck around with he election results, if they were in the system, I have a hard time understanding why they wouldn't.

That's merely a failure of your imagination. Here are a few hypotheticals I came up with in a few seconds:

They wanted to prove to themselves that they could do it, to demonstrate their skills internally.
They wanted to prove to us that they could do it, so that we'd see them as a threat and they'd have leverage over us.
They wanted to prove to others that they could do it, so that they could profit off it (by either repeating it for hire, or acting as consultants)
They wanted to sow discord.
They were testing our defenses, because they eventually want to manipulate our votes, but know that success requires going undetected.

 

[Postvieww]

I don't hate Trump. I just think he is an obnoxious boor. Wouldn't you agree?

No, but he is the best president of my lifetime and probably the history of this nation. Were he not elected the end of our democracy was sure. Sorry to use the democrats talking point on democracy but it is the truth.

 

[DaisyDay]

No facts here just Trump hatred.

You're mistaken. It is well documented that they were friends, some say best friends, for many, many years.

Trump actually reported Epstein to the authorities.

Lols, no, he did not. Where do you get this stuff? Trump has said, variously, that their friendship ended over a real estate deal, where Trump double-crossed Epstein, or over Epstein poaching Trump's spa girls. Either way, Epstein wasn't arrested for sex trafficking until many, many years later.

He also was the only to respond to a lawyer who represented abuse girls by Epstein.

What lawyer? And what does "respond" mean?

The lawyer said he was very cooperative and gave accurate information to the lawyer.

That does not mean Trump, who is himself an adjudicated sex abuser, did not party with Epstein for years upon years.

You just cansee truth because hatred for Trump is clouding judgment.

It's not my judgement that is clouded in this case.

 

[Postvieww]

It's not my judgement that is clouded in this case.

I disagree!

 

[NxNW]

No, but he is the best president of my lifetime and probably the history of this nation. Were he not elected the end of our democracy was sure. Sorry to use the democrats talking point on democracy but it is the truth.

He's the best criminal, that's for sure.

 

[DaisyDay]

Tell me, why do you think Russia would hack into an election system only to NOT change any votes? I'm genuinely curious to hear why you think Russia would do that.

It seems that in 2016 Russia rooted around but any county can have a different voting system even within a state, so there was no consistency. The successful breaking into one system, didn't scale to being able to break into other systems. They must have figured that actually changing anything would expose them to more trouble than they'd gain.

That's how I remember it, anyway.