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

[Bradskii]

So you are correct that he made an incredibly vague and ambiguous statement "very plainly".

But he didn't then walk it back somewhat when he was in Trump's good books. He did a 180 and lied that there was no evidence. I'd trust him as much as I'd trust Trump to not cheat at golf. But hey, maybe you think that's acceptable behaviour.

 

[probinson]

That was the title of a guest editorial, not a news headline.

Perhaps, but it was a headline that the Washington Post ran. I never said it was a "news" headline.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2016/12/16/the-2016-election-was-stolen-got-a-nicer-way-to-say-that/

View attachment 368027

There was something severely wrong with that election we just conducted, and not just the outcome. It’s becoming pretty evident that Russia was actively intending and acting to subvert our principal exercise in democracy by doing precisely what the original intent of Watergate was: stealing secrets from the Democratic Party and using them to undermine the party’s campaign. Mission accomplished this time.​

​

But what’s worse is that it now appears that the FBI was unwittingly an accomplice to these dark efforts, and maybe not so entirely unwittingly. John Podesta isn’t a neutral observer for sure, but he manages to lay out a devastating critique of the FBI’s actions before the election, actions that could fairly have been described at the time as likely to prejudice the outcome.​

​

...And yet Clinton still won the most votes. By a lot. And yet, she doesn’t get to be president because of a rule that gives Trump the White House because he won a tiny handful more votes in a few states. Yes, rules are rules. But when you look at the Russian efforts to swing the result, and the strange behavior of the FBI, is anybody prepared to say that those efforts weren’t sufficient to give Trump the tiny margin he will be made president by?​

​

...If you don’t want to call it stolen, I’d like to hear your suggestion for a more appropriate word for what just happened.​

Tom Toles, a Pulitzer Prize winner, was an editorial cartoonist for The Washington Post from 2002 until 2020. His latest book is "The Madhouse Effect," a book about climate and climate-change denial co-authored with climate scientist Michael Mann.
follow on XTomTolesToons

It sounds like Tom Toles either doesn't understand how the electoral college works, or is not in favor of the rules when the outcome doesn't go the way he prefers. Mr. Toles also uses the term "Russian efforts". That's a slightly different way to say "Russian interference", but it is equally murky.

 

[probinson]

But he didn't then walk it back somewhat when he was in Trump's good books. He did a 180 and lied that there was no evidence. I'd trust him as much as I'd trust Trump to not cheat at golf. But hey, maybe you think that's acceptable behaviour.

Why would you quote a source that you don't trust?

 

[Say it aint so]

Perhaps, but it was a headline that the Washington Post ran. I never said it was a "news" headline.



It sounds like Tom Toles either doesn't understand how the electoral college works, or is not in favor of the rules when the outcome doesn't go the way he prefers. Mr. Toles also uses the term "Russian efforts". That's a slightly different way to say "Russian interference", but it is equally murky.

A Russian effort to interfere in the election in favor of Trump is exactly what it was. There is nothing murky about that claim.

Russian oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin, "Putin's chef," admits interference in U.S. elections

 

[Bradskii]

Why would you quote a source that you don't trust?

I'm quoting him as an example of someone who can't be trusted. I thought that was blazingly obvious. If I quote Trump saying something stupid then are you puzzled that I'm quoting a stupid person?

 

[probinson]

A Russian effort to interfere in the election in favor of Trump is exactly what it was. There is nothing murky about that claim.

Yes there is. "Interference" is, in itself, a horribly ambiguous term. Did they "interfere" by posting things on social media? Did they "interfere" by hacking election systems and changing votes? Did they "interfere" by sowing discord? "Interference" exists on a spectrum from meh, to OHNO! Since the beginning, Democrats and the media have used that to their advantage by claiming "interference" without ever really clarifying what that means.

 

[probinson]

Should you believe this?

'The intelligence community has assembled probably an unparalleled amount of evidence in regards to the Russian not just efforts to interfere in 2016, but ongoing efforts to interfere in American society.'

That's a quote from the Senate Intelligence Committee who issued a bipartisan review of the 2016 intelligence in 2018. The person who made the quote is Marco Rubio.

I'm quoting him as an example of someone who can't be trusted.

Just so I'm clear, since you're saying Rubio can't be trusted, are you suggesting that when you originally quoted his saying there was an "unparalleled amount of evidence", that can't be trusted because Rubio said it?

 

[Bradskii]

Just so I'm clear, since you're saying Rubio can't be trusted, are you suggesting that when you originally quoted his saying there was an "unparalleled amount of evidence", that can't be trusted because Rubio said it?

That's for you to decide. But there was a barrel load of evidence. It's not like he was making that up. You have enough information about it to know that that is a fact. And you know enough to decide if his 180 was genuine or not. But let's face it, the evidence didn't evaporate and he was saying 'Hey, look. It somehow simply ceased to exist'.

The evidence is still as he reported originally. Except now he denies it. I think anyone who suggests that he lied the first time and then decided to tell the truth later is not being entirely honest. But that's up to you.

 

[Bradskii]

Since the beginning, Democrats and the media have used that to their advantage by claiming "interference" without ever really clarifying what that means.

Whut? Seriously? Was there a news blackout in your area in 2020 when the report came out? Were you hiking in Nepal for a year or so and missed all the reporting? All media outlets gave detailed information on the inquiry. It's simply not credible for you to say that no-one clarified exactly what was done.

 

[Vambram]

The Durham report is old news and was replied to as old news. What's new? What are the new FACTS that were released - that are not recycled discredited talking points from Trumps last NPD tanty about this years ago?

I'm betting that you have not even read the link to the report from Senator Grassley about the newly declassified annex in the Durham report. You know, the link which I have provided at least twice in this thread? Would you like to see it again?

 

[Vambram]

Hilarious.

Tulsi was never on the Intelligence Committee during her time in Congress. She never worked in intelligence. She's been DNI for not quite 6 months. That's not a resume, that's a political reward.

Tulsi Gabbard, as the Director of National Intelligence, has a much higher level of clearance to secret and classified documents and information than does any one singular CIA agent or CIA analyst ever could have. Her resume and access is far better than any one single CIA agent.

 

[Vambram]

DOJ launching grand jury investigation into Russiagate conspiracy allegations: sources

Bondi directed her staff to act on the criminal referral from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard related to the alleged conspiracy to tie President Donald Trump to Russia, and the Department of Justice is now opening a grand jury investigation into the matter, Fox News Digital has...

www.foxnews.com

 

[eclipsenow]

We're done.

Note to self: certain MAGA types do not like to be reminded that:-

1. Trump has NPD,
2. that as a result, his administration has been documented lying more than any other in American history,
3. that tracking these lies is a whole industry,
4. that they are willing participants in said lies when they are willing to 'just believe' the Trump-appointed head of department / committee,
5. (AKA official carrier of Trumpist lies).

 

[essentialsaltes]

DOJ launching grand jury investigation into Russiagate conspiracy allegations: sources

Bondi directed her staff to act on the criminal referral from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard related to the alleged conspiracy to tie President Donald Trump to Russia, and the Department of Justice is now opening a grand jury investigation into the matter, Fox News Digital has...

www.foxnews.com

It is unclear whom the grand jury is expected to target and what charges could be in play

You don't say!

 

[eclipsenow]

Tulsi Gabbard, as the Director of National Intelligence, has a much higher level of clearance to secret and classified documents and information than does any one singular CIA agent or CIA analyst ever could have. Her resume and access is far better than any one single CIA agent.

It's not about her clearance. The question is are there any new verifiable facts that she has access to?
The world has been around this block before! Trump's NPD makes him constitutionally unable to acknowledge reality when his precious ego and public image have been tarnished by the whiff off a rumour of Russia helping him win.

These debates about who is qualified to talk about this matter are just sad. Watching Trumpists try to defend Gabbard's lack of intel experience - and that she's now the super-spook keeper of the super-secrets - it just makes me laugh. EVERYTHING in this administration is impacted by Trump's NPD.

So maybe rather than debating whether or not Gabbard's pre-digested, pre-massaged, pre-spun summary paragraphs about the unreliability of previous fact-filled reports should not be the focus: maybe we need to test what her claims are against things we know.

For instance: WE KNOW certain things because they came out in court!

Giuliani and Trump alleged the Russian government had been framed, and that it was the Ukrainian government that had interfered to benefit Hillary Clinton. It was later revealed in court by lawyers for...​

Julian Assange that Dana Rohrabacher, acting on behalf of Trump, had made a quid pro quo offer of a presidential pardon to Assange, in exchange for Assange covering up Russian involvement by declaring that "Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks".​

Russia investigation origins conspiracy theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

(Also - seriously Trump-ists - have you not heard of the RIOC? Russia Investigation Origins Conspiracy? You've all been had! We've all kicked this can down the road before. Trump's just recycling it because he is panicking over this Epstein thing.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

It is unclear whom the grand jury is expected to target and what charges could be in play

You don't say!

No one has to get indicted after a GJ investigation.

 

[probinson]

Whut? Seriously? Was there a news blackout in your area in 2020 when the report came out? Were you hiking in Nepal for a year or so and missed all the reporting? All media outlets gave detailed information on the inquiry. It's simply not credible for you to say that no-one clarified exactly what was done.

In 2016 when it mattered, Democrats and media talking heads were running all over creation proclaiming that the election had been STOLEN!!! from them with absolutely no evidence. The result of that coordinated propaganda campaign was that more than 2/3 of Democrats believed that Russia had changed votes to help Trump get elected.

No report in 2020 changes that. No amount of denial makes it untrue. It is abundantly clear that the messaging that "Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected President" is what people heard in 2016.

 

[probinson]

Additionally, when I get the link for that piece in the WaPo search results, I get a subtitle that makes the real point especially clear:

View attachment 368036

That subtitle seems to not be visible in every context, but either way, there is no claim in there of manipulation of actual votes.

Just so I'm clear on the current narrative, is the suggestion here that if someone posts a meme containing misinformation on social media, and that meme causes someone to vote a certain way, this somehow constitutes "stealing" an election?

 

[Bradskii]

In 2016 when it mattered, Democrats and media talking heads were running all over creation proclaiming that the election had been STOLEN!!! from them with absolutely no evidence.

There's an enormous amount of evidence that shows interference. Yet you just asked what it was. And nonsensically claimed that the media didn't report it. That is abject nonsense. You're playing word games to try to avoid confronting the facts. It beats me why.

 

[probinson]

There's an enormous amount of evidence that shows interference. Yet you just asked what it was. And nonsensically claimed that the media didn't report it. That is abject nonsense. You're playing word games to try to avoid confronting the facts. It beats me why.

Why is it that no one can explain why more than 2/3 of Democratic voters believed the conspiracy that Russia had changed votes to get Trump elected? 2/3 is a sizable portion of voters. Why did that many Democrats believe votes had been tampered with if no one was suggesting that was the case?