-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Watch: CNN Cuts Tulsi Gabbard Off as She Lays Out the Inconvenient Facts of the Russia Hoax
- Thread starter Always in His Presence
- Start date
eclipsenow
Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
- Dec 17, 2010
- 9,632
- 2,396
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
It's not just you - it's your tribe.
In this thread.
If you go back I've challenged other members of your tribe to show exactly where this CIA specialist is wrong.
With specifics.
He was there.
He wrote the report.
He is now verifying his report - and standing by it.
And by this fact, calling out Gabbard at every false claim she makes.
But hey - if you want to be in this thread and yet not deal with this source - that's your choice.
But those of us NOT in your tribe know what that looks like.
It's your call.
Seriously - from "I would like to be a Pope" to "They should reopen Alcatraz" - how many silly Truth-Trolls are the alt-right going to support just to divert attention from the real policy stuff-ups of the day!
Isn't it time he just released the Epstein files - instead of slandering the honest hardworking members of the intelligence community - let alone trash talking Obama? Trump whines like he is still in opposition! It's just wince-worthy.
Upvote
0
- Dec 3, 2006
- 7,786
- 5,671
- 60
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Can this so-called former CIA specialist actually be proven that he actually did work in the CIA? Can it proved that he is speaking the truth instead of someone else's own agenda?
Upvote
0
eclipsenow
Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
- Dec 17, 2010
- 9,632
- 2,396
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
You know - you come in and attack my position on Trump or something - and then we end up how I don't know what you stand for.
I guess if you refuse to ever contribute your opinions on actual sources I refer to - I'll never know! Good on you - always directing the conversation back to me not knowing what you think. Nevertheless, you're happy to attack those who dare to point out some inconsistency within Trumpism. But I don't know what you think!
But you're always defending Trumpism, or attacking those who point out inconsistencies with Trumpism. But again - I don't know what you think!This is where our conversation usually ends. Fine. I don't know what you think.
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.
But - I don't know what you think!
Now - please reply that I don't know what you think - and then we're done here. It's the rule when talking with you. It's the formula.
It's also pretty much the same top 3 rules Trump applies:
1. Flood the zone.
2. Attack the 'ignorance' of others about his own mystifying intentions.
3. AKA: distract, distract, distract.
Upvote
0
BPPLEE
Well-Known Member
- Apr 13, 2022
- 15,979
- 7,472
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
You've obviously got me confused with someone else. I posted about some media sources being biased and you jumped in the conversation and berated me about sources. I gave my opinion about your sources in post #345, and no, it wasn't an attack.You know - you come in and attack my position on Trump or something - and then we end up how I don't know what you stand for.
I guess if you refuse to ever contribute your opinions on actual sources I refer to - I'll never know! Good on you - always directing the conversation back to me not knowing what you think. Nevertheless, you're happy to attack those who dare to point out some inconsistency within Trumpism. But I don't know what you think!
This is where our conversation usually ends. Fine. I don't know what you think.
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.
But - I don't know what you think!
Now - please reply that I don't know what you think - and then we're done here. It's the rule when talking with you. It's the formula.
It's also pretty much the same top 3 rules Trump applies:
1. Flood the zone.
2. Attack the 'ignorance' of others about his own mystifying intentions.
3. AKA: distract, distract, distract.
I haven't attacked anyone and I really have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not an apologist for Trump either.
I acknowledge his flaws.
Maybe you can post some examples of me attacking someone?
Or are you just making wild accusations?
You seem to be the one following the top 3 rules you pointed out, not me
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Dec 3, 2006
- 7,786
- 5,671
- 60
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
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
Who should I believe? Someone who claims to be an ex-CIA agent, or Senator Grassley and theses declassified documents?
Upvote
0
BPPLEE
Well-Known Member
- Apr 13, 2022
- 15,979
- 7,472
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Now, what will they say about these sources?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...
Who should I believe? Someone who claims to be an ex-CIA agent, or Senator Grassley and theses declassified documents?
Upvote
0
eclipsenow
Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
- Dec 17, 2010
- 9,632
- 2,396
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
And again we're discussing your opinion of my opinion of you....
I think we're done here if you have nothing of substance to contribute.
Upvote
0
eclipsenow
Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
- Dec 17, 2010
- 9,632
- 2,396
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
Someone who was an actual CIA agent, who studied the ACTUAL EVIDENCE in 2016!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...
Who should I believe? Someone who claims to be an ex-CIA agent, or Senator Grassley and theses declassified documents?
Or the Mueller special investigation!
But what you should not respect is the parody of a 'special investigation' which itself was a farce, let alone the later rehash of this farce by 'a newly declassified' release of the farce!
The Durham wiki shows this to be the same old song Trump's narcissism always makes him sing. "Everyone's bad except me!" Projecting much?
Durham's investigation was predicated on false claims by President Trump and his allies beginning in 2017 that the Russia investigation, code-named Crossfire Hurricane, was motivated by a conspiracy by U.S. intelligence or law enforcement agencies.[2] The investigation had found many questionable links between Trump associates and Russian officials and spies and led to the Mueller investigation. The president said the probe was part of a deep state plot and a "hoax" or "witch hunt" that was initiated by his political enemies.
Durham special counsel investigation - Wikipedia
This wiki is worth a read! The quote in red below is FATAL to Trump's credibility.
The Russia investigation origins conspiracy theory or Russia counter-narrative[1] is a conspiracy theory narrative created by Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Republican Party leaders, and right-wing[2][3] conservatives.[4] It attacks the legitimacy and conclusions of multiple investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 elections and the public and secretive links between Russian intelligence and Trump associates. Trump in particular has attacked the origins and conclusions of the Crossfire Hurricane and Mueller investigations and ordered Attorney General William Barr[5][6] and U.S. attorney John Durham[7] to conduct reviews of the investigations.[8][9][10][11]
The narrative includes conspiracy theories such as Trump's Spygate theory, accusations of a secretive, elite "deep state" network,[4][12] descriptions of the Russian interference investigations as an illegal "Russian collusion hoax",[13] that the "real collusion" was between Hillary Clinton, Democrats, and Russia – and later, Ukraine.
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
Upvote
0
Bradskii
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
- Aug 19, 2018
- 23,117
- 15,735
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
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. You can listen to him saying that at the 3 minute mark on the video link that has been posted at least three times. Maybe you should watch it.
His view now (from here: MSN):
'Rubio, who previously chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee, said his own investigation into the matter found "zero, zilch proof" that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia.'
Hey, whaddya know. I guess all that 'unparallelled amount of evidence' simply evaporated. But let's face it: the Sec of State lied to you. Your mission, should you wish to accept it, is to decide if he lied back then, or is lying now. But seeing that Trump prefers him inside the tent directing waste products out of it rather than outside the tent directing them into it, I have a good idea which it is.
And as for casting (some rather desperate) doubts about the bona fides of the CIA agent who was instrumental in preparing the evidence...
From here: Michael van Landingham — CYBERWARCON
'Michael E. van Landingham is an independent researcher through his firm Active Measures, LLC. Until 2019 he was a government intelligence analyst. He was the lead author of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 election. Van Landingham holds degrees in Slavic Languages and Literatures and Russian, Eastern European, and Central Asian Studies from Princeton and Harvard Universities, respectively.
And here: Active Measures, LLC Providers of Research & Analysis to Defense, Security, Agencies
'For eight years, Michael was an analyst for a federal government agency, where he provided strategic and tactical analysis across a range of formats to senior policymakers and others.
Michael received his Bachelor’s from Princeton University in Slavic Languages and Literatures. He earned a Master’s from Harvard University in Russian, Eastern European, and Central Asian Studies. Michael is in the process of developing a dissertation for the graduate program in Sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He resides in Wisconsin and speaks Russian and French.'
He's the guy who had his finger on the pulse. He's the guy that had the facts at his fingertips. He's the guy that produced what Rubio called an 'unparallelled amount of evidence'.
Deal with it. And note that everyone here seems to be able to pass gas and chew gum at the same time, so Epstein is still front and centre. Nobody has forgotten about it. It ain't gone aways.
Upvote
0
eclipsenow
Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
- Dec 17, 2010
- 9,632
- 2,396
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
I'm with you 100% up to this point! It's important to be clear on what Rubio said and why, especially as he's such a great source - being Republican and all!
There are 2 issues here. What did RUSSIA do? What did the TRUMP CAMPAIGN do?
Russian influence falls under the realm of counter-espionage and spy craft and public education. While it might not be a good look politically being so favoured by Russia - it's something Russia is responsible for - not the Trump campaign.
But Trump's campaign comes directly under Federal law. There could or should be immediate consequences! My understanding at the moment is is that while there was some collusion from some members of the campaign, nothing tied Trump down. Then again, the DOJ did not have the authority to go that high up the Chain of Command! It hardly makes Trump squeaky clean in all this, and there were some very serious allegations.
The Mueller investigation concluded that Russian interference was "sweeping and systematic" and "violated U.S. criminal law", and indicted Russian citizens and Russian organizations. The investigation "identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign".[18][19] The investigation resulted in charges against 34 individuals and 3 companies, 8 guilty pleas, and a conviction at trial.[20][21] It concluded that though the Trump campaign welcomed the Russian activities and expected to benefit from them, there was insufficient evidence to bring any "conspiracy" or "coordination" charges against Trump or his associates,[Note 1] and that they were prevented from reaching a conclusion on whether Trump had obstructed justice by a Justice Department guideline prohibiting the federal indictment of a sitting president.[28][29][30]
Russia investigation origins conspiracy theory - Wikipedia
One of the most telling examples of how far Trump's team went in pushing this conspiracy is getting Julian Assange to lie for them! The head of wikileaks - say it isn't so!
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
The frustrating thing is we went through all this back then! Trump gets panicked - repeats the same stupid lies with new staff - and this time they all fall into line and sprout the same nonsense. It wasn't true then - and it's not true now. So the right resorts to re-releasing already discredited and farcical 'special investigations' as if it's new news.
Trump frequently expressed that those findings called into question the legitimacy of his presidency. He attacked the Russia investigation over 1,100 times by February 2019, claiming that it was fabricated as an excuse for Hillary Clinton losing the Electoral College in 2016, that it was an "illegal hoax", and that the FBI had refused to investigate the "real collusion" between the Democrats and Russia – and later, Ukraine.[45] However, three years after the election the FBI Director appointed by Trump, Christopher A. Wray, stated: "We have no information that indicates that Ukraine interfered with the 2016 presidential election. ... [A]s far as the [2020] election itself goes, we think Russia represents the most significant threat."[46]
From the outset, conservatives tried to delegitimize the Mueller investigation.[6] Republican Party leaders suggested that Robert Mueller's inquiry stemmed from a plot by members of the Obama Administration and career intelligence officials—an alleged "deep state"—to undermine Trump.[5]
On April 2, 2019, Trump personally urged investigation into the origins of the Mueller investigation.[10][9] In response, Democrats and some former law enforcement officials expressed concern that Attorney General William Barr was "using the justice department to chase unsubstantiated conspiracy theories" that could cast doubt on the Mueller report's findings.[47][48]
Russia investigation origins conspiracy theory - Wikipedia
Your main point on Rubio
I guess your main point is if Rubio now starts to go along with Trump repeating this tired old conspiracy theory of his, already discredited back in the day, then Rubio is contradicting a major report he was a part of writing back when the evidence was fresher. The problem for Rubio is Trump's personality disorder makes it impossible for him to stop, and a major part of his condition is he does not care who gets squashed as collateral damage in his goals. In fact - he maliciously enjoys it!I'm with you on everything below!
Upvote
0
eclipsenow
Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
- Dec 17, 2010
- 9,632
- 2,396
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
- Oct 2, 2020
- 27,664
- 15,087
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
There's not much info about him. One of the few hits I got for Michael Van Landingham was from IMDb (Internet Movie Database).
Upvote
0
eclipsenow
Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
- Dec 17, 2010
- 9,632
- 2,396
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
Rubio seemed to like him.
As Bradski said:
And as for casting (some rather desperate) doubts about the bona fides of the CIA agent who was instrumental in preparing the evidence...
From here: Michael van Landingham — CYBERWARCON
'Michael E. van Landingham is an independent researcher through his firm Active Measures, LLC. Until 2019 he was a government intelligence analyst. He was the lead author of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 election. Van Landingham holds degrees in Slavic Languages and Literatures and Russian, Eastern European, and Central Asian Studies from Princeton and Harvard Universities, respectively.
'For eight years, Michael was an analyst for a federal government agency, where he provided strategic and tactical analysis across a range of formats to senior policymakers and others.
Michael received his Bachelor’s from Princeton University in Slavic Languages and Literatures. He earned a Master’s from Harvard University in Russian, Eastern European, and Central Asian Studies. Michael is in the process of developing a dissertation for the graduate program in Sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He resides in Wisconsin and speaks Russian and French.'
He's the guy who had his finger on the pulse. He's the guy that had the facts at his fingertips. He's the guy that produced what Rubio called an 'unparallelled amount of evidence'.
Deal with it. And note that everyone here seems to be able to pass gas and chew gum at the same time, so Epstein is still front and centre. Nobody has forgotten about it. It ain't gone aways.
This Rolling Stones interview is interesting. It says it all started for him when the Malaysian airlines jet got shot down.In 2014, van Landingham was a CIA analyst serving a rotation at another intelligence agency (he won’t say which) when Russian-backed operatives in Ukraine shot down a civilian Malaysian airline as it flew across the country Moscow had just invaded.
“I was really mad about [the airliner] getting shot down because there were a bunch of children on it. I think 80 children,” he says.
Russia falsely claimed that its troops weren’t fighting in Ukraine or sending weapons to proxy forces. The Kremlin denied any involvement in the incident.
“What I really didn’t like was that they were lying. You want to demonstrate that they’re lying, right? So I spent some of my time writing a paper about Russia lying and then using messaging to denigrate the United States,” he says.
At the time, how Russia lies was hardly the buzziest topic, even among Russia nerds. But van Landingham’s expertise would soon make him an in-demand analyst when Moscow’s covert propaganda operation set its sights on an American presidential election....
... “We had a couple names for it that we were trying to come up with. Everyone wants to be on a team with a cool name,” he says. But CIA management opted instead to give the team a vaguer, more anodyne title: the “fusion cell.” Members of the cell were asked to answer two questions: “Tell us what’s going on and what is going to happen next,” van Landingham recalls.
....When WikiLeaks published a tranche of Podesta’s emails in late October, the link between the Russian hackers and the releases became undeniable. The dump contained the original spear phishing message that Russian hackers had used to trick Podesta into coughing up his password. News outlets quickly seized on the email, crediting it for what it was: proof that the Russians were behind the campaign.
He Confirmed Russia Meddled in 2016 to Help Trump. Now, He's Speaking Out
Trump viewed the 2017 intel report as his 'Achilles heel.' Now the analyst who wrote it opens up about Trump, Russia and what really happened in 2016.
www.rollingstone.com
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Oct 2, 2020
- 27,664
- 15,087
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
That's like a garden variety employee resume. It doesn't stack up against Director of National Intelligence.Rubio seemed to like him.
As Bradski said:
And as for casting (some rather desperate) doubts about the bona fides of the CIA agent who was instrumental in preparing the evidence...From here: Michael van Landingham — CYBERWARCON'Michael E. van Landingham is an independent researcher through his firm Active Measures, LLC. Until 2019 he was a government intelligence analyst. He was the lead author of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 election. Van Landingham holds degrees in Slavic Languages and Literatures and Russian, Eastern European, and Central Asian Studies from Princeton and Harvard Universities, respectively.'For eight years, Michael was an analyst for a federal government agency, where he provided strategic and tactical analysis across a range of formats to senior policymakers and others.Michael received his Bachelor’s from Princeton University in Slavic Languages and Literatures. He earned a Master’s from Harvard University in Russian, Eastern European, and Central Asian Studies. Michael is in the process of developing a dissertation for the graduate program in Sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He resides in Wisconsin and speaks Russian and French.'He's the guy who had his finger on the pulse. He's the guy that had the facts at his fingertips. He's the guy that produced what Rubio called an 'unparallelled amount of evidence'.Deal with it. And note that everyone here seems to be able to pass gas and chew gum at the same time, so Epstein is still front and centre. Nobody has forgotten about it. It ain't gone aways.This Rolling Stones interview is interesting. It says it all started for him when the Malaysian airlines jet got shot down.
In 2014, van Landingham was a CIA analyst serving a rotation at another intelligence agency (he won’t say which) when Russian-backed operatives in Ukraine shot down a civilian Malaysian airline as it flew across the country Moscow had just invaded.“I was really mad about [the airliner] getting shot down because there were a bunch of children on it. I think 80 children,” he says.Russia falsely claimed that its troops weren’t fighting in Ukraine or sending weapons to proxy forces. The Kremlin denied any involvement in the incident.“What I really didn’t like was that they were lying. You want to demonstrate that they’re lying, right? So I spent some of my time writing a paper about Russia lying and then using messaging to denigrate the United States,” he says.At the time, how Russia lies was hardly the buzziest topic, even among Russia nerds. But van Landingham’s expertise would soon make him an in-demand analyst when Moscow’s covert propaganda operation set its sights on an American presidential election....... “We had a couple names for it that we were trying to come up with. Everyone wants to be on a team with a cool name,” he says. But CIA management opted instead to give the team a vaguer, more anodyne title: the “fusion cell.” Members of the cell were asked to answer two questions: “Tell us what’s going on and what is going to happen next,” van Landingham recalls.....When WikiLeaks published a tranche of Podesta’s emails in late October, the link between the Russian hackers and the releases became undeniable. The dump contained the original spear phishing message that Russian hackers had used to trick Podesta into coughing up his password. News outlets quickly seized on the email, crediting it for what it was: proof that the Russians were behind the campaign.He Confirmed Russia Meddled in 2016 to Help Trump. Now, He's Speaking Out
Trump viewed the 2017 intel report as his 'Achilles heel.' Now the analyst who wrote it opens up about Trump, Russia and what really happened in 2016.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
