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

[probinson]

This is politics. If you have dirt on your opponent then you put it to good use.

No, no, no. If you post damaging information about your opponent that causes other people to change their votes, then you have "interfered" in the election and are an accessory to the STOLEN!!! result. C'mon man. Keep your stories straight!

There's literally nothing wrong about it whatsoever.

On that point, we agree. There is nothing criminal here. It's just a bunch of noise to appease the Republican base.

 

[Bradskii]

I like how you term things that are damaging to your argument "dross".

I can only call it as I see it. And I see it yet again below. You keep repeating the same junk maybe thinking it'll get less dross-like with every telling. I'm here to tell you that it won't. It's just been cut 'n' paste now for any number of posts for quite a while.

I'd love for someone (anyone) to explain...

I cut the rest out. We've seen it so often I don't want to repeat it again. It's been explained. But ignore that and I'll call back later when you've repeated it yet again. My response will be the same.

 

[Bradskii]

Senator Grassley completely disagrees with your summary and conclusions about that annex.

I don't think he's a member of this forum. But you are, and I'll bet you haven't read that pdf yourself. Now you'll have to in order to point out what you think this new, brand spanking, earth shattering, political career ending evidence actually is.

Let me know if you find anything.

 

[probinson]

I can only call it as I see it.

Ditto.

And I see it yet again below. You keep repeating the same junk maybe thinking it'll get less dross-like with every telling.

Why is stating what actually happened classified as "dross' and "junk" ? Do you dispute that more than 2/3 of Democrats were misled into believing that Russia changed votes to get Trump elected? If not, why do you think they thought that? Clearly you don't think it was because Democrats were running around talking about a STOLEN!!! election, so where did more than 2/3 of Democrats get this idea from?

I cut the rest out. We've seen it so often I don't want to repeat it again.

I can understand why.

It's been explained.

It has not.

 

[Vambram]

I don't think he's a member of this forum. But you are, and I'll bet you haven't read that pdf yourself. Now you'll have to in order to point out what you think this new, brand spanking, earth shattering, political career ending evidence actually is.

Let me know if you find anything.

I have already pointed out what is the new information. I am not going to go back and repeat myself again and again.

 

[probinson]

Let's try this another way...

"Russia hacked our elections".
"The election was stolen."
"Trump is an illegitimate President."

If you knew nothing about what was going on, what would these statements, repeated ad nauseam on every media platform, cause you to believe? Would your first thought be, "Gee, those darn Russians must be making social media memes again to sway people's votes."?

The language chosen elicited the response they wanted. They convinced more than 2/3 of their voters that Russia had "hacked" our elections by tampering with votes. And they never had to directly state it (because they knew it was false). However, they were more than happy to let their voters believe that was the case.

 

[Bradskii]

Do you dispute that more than 2/3 of Democrats etc etc etc etc etc etc

Darn it, my lunch is nearly ready. I'll have to resort to what you are doing and go the Ctrl-C option.

I can only call it as I see it. And I see it yet again above. You keep repeating the same junk maybe thinking it'll get less dross-like with every telling. I'm here to tell you that it won't. It's just been cut 'n' paste now for any number of posts for quite a while.

 

[Bradskii]

I have already pointed out what is the new information. I am not going to go back and repeat myself again and again.

Yeah, the annex is the new information. It wasn't previously available. So that makes it...new. But I wasn't asking you what the 'new information' is. I know what it is. I've read it. I don't think that you have. So you'll have to now in order to tell me what new EVIDENCE it contains. That is evidence that is 'new, brand spanking, earth shattering, political career ending'.

Got that? I want the evidence. Not hearsay. Not run of the mill opinion. But hard, diamond encrusted, 100 carat gold plated evidence. See you back here when you find it.

 

[A2SG]

Why? I mean, we seem to agree that there has never been any evidence that vote tampering occurred. So by what mechanism did "some people" (ahem, more than 2/3 of Democrats) feel that the election was "stolen"?

You'd have to ask them. Personally, I've never claimed such a thing, so I can't speak for those folks.

-- A2SG, but their response to that accusation is pretty apparent, comparatively speaking....

 

[Say it aint so]

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.

They interfered by hacking computers both of candidates and state voting systems.

 

[eclipsenow]

one-trick pony with whataboutisms.

What-about-isms are actually analogues for measuring sheer hypocrisy!​

What-about-isms are great! They illustrate that people in glass houses should not throw stones.
Also, the public can be really dumb and believe all kinds of lies.
You know - like "CO2 is plant food - therefore climate change isn't real."
Or "In the 70's ALL climate scientists predicted an ice age - therefore they don't know what's going on and keep changing their story!" Etc.

PUBLIC BE DUMB - and ENTITLED TO SPREAD THE DUMB!
15% of all Americans believe QANON! So what's your point?

I've already detailed how Clinton's statements were misheard by the American public in previous posts. As far as I know, she never claimed the Russians actually succeeded in tampering with vote counting mechanisms. In other words - who cares what the public believe? Public be dumb. It's a big world, and it's very complicated - and I hardly know anything about it.

I'm TRYING to be humble on certain areas. If I get asked about something - I generally say "I'm prone to thinking this about that - but I could be wrong. I need to know more!"

I hear growing up in the USA can involve being constantly reminded of your 'rights'. The 'right' to free speech has become "My right to say any opinion or whim as firmly and loudly as I can - whether I actually know anything about this or not!"

So - Hillary did NOT claim the Russians actually hacked the vote. Maybe her followers did - but meh. Public be dumb sometimes.

WHAT-ABOUT-TRUMP HEY?
He shouted and ranted and pleaded the whole "Stop the steal" conspiracy. Because, NPD can't lose. Ever! The world must be convinced of his sheer wonderfulness every nano-second of every day - or his fragile ego will collapse!
Trump incited violence against the Capitol, and then pardoned 1600 offenders, 300 of which were quite violent - 16 of whom hurt police officers! - all because he felt loyalty to them for BELIEVING THE BIG LIE! For giving him his hit of narcissistic supply. That's what America must live with now because they elected someone with NPD. I would say NPD is grounds for the 25th - but that's another debate.

Durham report vs REALITY​

Please watch this interview with CIA Russia specialist Michael Van Landingham. I have timed it to the spot where he answers 2 VITAL questions:​

1: How much of his work was influenced by the Steele Dossier?​

2: Did they ever claim Russia hacked voting systems?​

NEWSFLASH: Steele is M16 - and for some reason felt compelled to rush his dossier out to the public.

Van Landingham is CIA, highly qualified, highly disciplined, and did his own homework and released it when ready. Sure - there was some pressure to release it in a fairly short amount of time. That can happen in intelligence. But his claims were measured according to the data.

He did his own homework, and the answers to the above questions are:
1: None.
2: Never.

The whole foundation of the Durham report is a house of cards - and this re-releasing of it will blow over the way it did the first time. Others have already evaluated it - and it is beyond a joke. It's out there with "The moon landing was faked."

 

[Servus]

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).

The problem is you were in personal attack mode again. That's when the debate is over with as far as I'm concerned. And the discussion was about the director of national security vs a former CIA employee. Trump doesn't really even come into it. Rants and personal attacks pretty much destroy a proper debate. So, we're done.

 

[eclipsenow]

The problem is you were in personal attack mode again. That's when the debate is over with as far as I'm concerned.

Which bit was so offensive, if you don't mind my asking? Was it the first line - that if you just swallow what Gabbard's selling "you're so far down the MAGA rabbit hole..."

Was that really that offensive? If so - why? I've received FAR worse on this forum and not been that upset. I just see it as a provocative metaphor to challenge someone to think about the situation differently.

But if for some reason it is genuinely personally offensive - and I missed something - I'm happy to apologise and retract it.

And the discussion was about the director of national security vs a former CIA employee. Trump doesn't really even come into it. Rants and personal attacks pretty much destroy a proper debate. So, we're done.

But Trump DOES come into it. Trump is the CAUSE of this.
No one really wants to drag out the Durham report again. It was false the first time - and it's even more false and boring now.
Gabbard's President basically directed everyone to "Go prove Obama and Clinton did this thing I said they did!"
What can she really do other than promote her boss's error?

Durham report vs REALITY​

Please watch this interview with CIA Russia specialist Michael Van Landingham. I have timed it to the spot where he answers 2 VITAL questions:​

1: Was Landingham's report influenced by the Steele Dossier?​

2: Did the report claim the Russians hacked voting systems?​

NEWSFLASH: Steele is M16 - and for some reason felt compelled to rush his dossier out to the public.

Michael Van Landingham is CIA, highly qualified, highly disciplined, and did his own homework and released it when ready. Sure - there was some pressure to release it in a fairly short amount of time. That can happen in intelligence. But his claims were measured according to the data.

He did his own homework, and the answers to the above questions are:
1: No
2: No

The whole foundation of the Durham report is a house of cards - and this re-releasing of it will blow over the way it did the first time. Others have already evaluated it - and it is beyond a joke. It's out there with "The moon landing was faked."

 

[Servus]

Which bit was so offensive, if you don't mind my asking? Was it the first line - that if you just swallow what Gabbard's selling "you're so far down the MAGA rabbit hole..."

The problem with personal attacks like that is I have to leave the topic and talk about myself to address it. I don't like the Democrat party and liberalism. That holds true regardless of Trump. It would be the same if DeSantis or someone else was president. A person doesn't have to be a MAGA to be against the Democrat party and against liberalism. Maybe if you were an American you'd understand the dynamic better. It's more about being anti-Democrat and anti-liberalism, than about being pro-trump. Trump will be out of office in mere 3.4 years. But the Democrat party and liberalism will remain. I don't have my fingers crossed that you'll get that. Nor do I care.

 

[Servus]

Durham report vs REALITY​

Please watch this interview with CIA Russia specialist Michael Van Landingham. I have timed it to the spot where he answers 2 VITAL questions:​

1: Was Landingham's report influenced by the Steele Dossier?​

2: Did the report claim the Russians hacked voting systems?​

NEWSFLASH: Steele is M16 - and for some reason felt compelled to rush his dossier out to the public.

Michael Van Landingham is CIA, highly qualified, highly disciplined, and did his own homework and released it when ready. Sure - there was some pressure to release it in a fairly short amount of time. That can happen in intelligence. But his claims were measured according to the data.

He did his own homework, and the answers to the above questions are:
1: No
2: No

The whole foundation of the Durham report is a house of cards - and this re-releasing of it will blow over the way it did the first time. Others have already evaluated it - and it is beyond a joke. It's out there with "The moon landing was faked."

And regardless of any of that the US Department of Intelligence is still going to fully investigate the matter. CNN cutting off the director just makes them look bad, as usual.

 

[Postvieww]

Nevertheless - the CIA specialist I have contributed stands. His testimony contradicts Gabbard's. Gabbard is wrong. Trumpism is wrong. Trump is deflecting attention from the Epstein files by his ridiculous song and dance about Obama being a traitor. And MAGA are falling for it as usual.

Yo have put all of your eggs in the wrong basket. What evidence do you have your CIA specialist is legit other than the fact he says what you want to hear. Tulsi is releasing facts which you ignore. A grand jury will sort this all out. Stay tuned.

 

[eclipsenow]

The problem with personal attacks like that is I have to leave the topic and talk about myself to address it. I don't like the Democrat party and liberalism. That holds true regardless of Trump. It would be the same if DeSantis or someone else was president. A person doesn't have to be a MAGA to be against the Democrat party and against liberalism. Maybe if you were an American you'd understand the dynamic better. It's more about being anti-Democrat and anti-liberalism, than about being pro-trump. Trump will be out of office in mere 3.4 years. But the Democrat party and liberalism will remain. I don't have my fingers crossed that you'll get that. Nor do I care.

I'm honestly glad you spelled that out - and I'll retract my statement and try to remember that you are not MAGA. (If I forget please remind me.)

You have a more nuanced position than I thought.

Before we get back on topic, I'm wondering if you can help me with something from an American point of view where I am Australian - and we have far more parties to vote for?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it the fact that the democrats could be perceived as being this huge umbrella that covers all sorts of views - some of them more extreme than others?
Australia's version is the Labor party - and there are a few factions. But then we also have the Greens - and they have some things I like - but a while bunch of really hostile policies about church schools and limiting freedom of religion in employment situations that I find troubling.

I get the impression that the Democrats are like Labor AND then Greens and even some more radical elements all combined under one big party umbrella. Is that why they are such a problem for you?

 

[probinson]

They interfered by hacking computers both of candidates and state voting systems.

OK. How does that amount to the election being STOLEN!!! ?

 

[probinson]

Darn it, my lunch is nearly ready. I'll have to resort to what you are doing and go the Ctrl-C option.

Actually, I'm in the superior world of Mac computing. So if I were hitting any key combination, it would be Cmd + C.

Oh hey, did you know that more than 2/3 of Democrats believed that Russia tampered with votes to help Trump win in 2016? I think that's because the media ran around using dubious catchphrases, such as "Russia hacked our election", "The election was STOLEN!!!" and "Trump is an illegitimate President." Do you think that's why people wrongly believed votes were tampered with, or do you have another plausible, alternative explanation?

 

[eclipsenow]

Yo have put all of your eggs in the wrong basket. What evidence do you have your CIA specialist is legit other than the fact he says what you want to hear. Tulsi is releasing facts which you ignore. A grand jury will sort this all out. Stay tuned.

I am not putting all my faith in this one guy, but the fact that this guy represents the whole team. I'm also Cognizant that Marco Rubio's Committee later assessed and approved of this same CIA report.

I'm also aware that the "new information" is just the same old discredited Trumped-up Durham report that has been debunked in many reviews. It's just we now get to read the words of this house of cards.

So don't get too excited. Don't just quote a glib summary of the findings of the Durham report. You'll need to read the whole thing yourself or you might just get too worked up but others summaries - and not know how weak the original is!