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

Vambram · Aug 4, 2025

Liberals keep on pointing back to previous information that was released several years ago. But, what I am not seeing is anything from them about the information that was NOT available until just a week or so ago.
Obviously, Wikipedia is not a strong source to use. However, clearly, Senator Grassley has read the newly declassified annex of the Durham Report and the newly declassified documents & emails which the public had no access to several years ago.

eclipsenow · Aug 4, 2025

ozso said:
That's like a garden variety employee resume. It doesn't stack up against Director of National Intelligence.

If you genuinely believe that you are so far down the MAGA rabbit hole that you don't know reality from NPD waffle. Trump has Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He CANNOT let any challenge to his Royal Wonderfulness stand. He has lied about Clinton and Russia before - and it is recognised as a tinfoil hat conspiracy up there with the Birther conspiracy Trump pushes. It's how he pretends to be one of you - except he's a billionaire - and a sick billionaire with NPD.

Everyone working for him seems to have come to terms with it - and just bury their conscience and with it - whatever ridiculous self contradictory or reality contradictory waffle it is this week.

So what specific details has Gabbard shared that you find to be more compelling than Landingham? Than Rubio? Or do you can just quote her mere TITLE and that will make reality flip to your preferences and political biases?

Come on. Details. I don't know much about this stuff - it could be fun. You might teach me something!

Unlike that previous commenter who consistently, across multiple threads, would get into a debate with me, contradict me on something , and when I replied with the logical inconsistencies of his position would ALWAYS claim I did not know his position! Then if he's that bad at communicating his view - today I realised I'm sick of that defence! What is the point of debating him if he cannot communicate!?
He ended up on my IGNORE list.

But if you know details about this that have convinced you that Gabbard is right and and actual CIA specialist is wrong - then this could be I interesting.

The reeking stink of NPD on Trump's Obama conspiracy has already convinced me this stuff is delusional. But if you can show me otherwise - go for it!

eclipsenow · Aug 4, 2025

Vambram said:
Liberals keep on pointing back to previous information that was released several years ago. But, what I am not seeing is anything from them about the information that was NOT available until just a week or so ago.
Obviously, Wikipedia is not a strong source to use. However, clearly, Senator Grassley has read the newly declassified annex of the Durham Report and the newly declassified documents & emails which the public had no access to several years ago.

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?

ozso · Aug 4, 2025

eclipsenow said:
If you genuinely believe that you are so far down the MAGA rabbit hole

We're done.

probinson · Aug 4, 2025

Say it aint so said:
Yes, the media did correctly note Russian hacked into our voting systems.

They also said the election was STOLEN!!! and called Trump an illegitimate president.

Say it aint so said:
Yes, some Dems did say the election was stolen with the rational being Russian helped Trump.

"Some" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that statement.

Say it aint so said:
Just like the media covered Trump saying the election was stolen.

The media didn't just cover the Democrats saying the election was stolen. They were loudly proclaiming it everywhere.

Say it aint so said:
Is it the medias fault they covered Trump at ej and Hillary et al making the same election stolen claims?

Again, the media wasn't just covering what Clinton and just about every Democrat on the planet was saying. They were opining the same thing, that the election had been STOLEN!!! and that Trump was an illegitimate president.

Say it aint so said:
Was the media who covered Trump's stolen election claims in some "coordinated propaganda campaign conspiracy?"

Absolutely.

Say it aint so said:
...oh wait, FOXnews and Newsmax actually were.

It's weird to me that people can see propaganda clearly when its on the other side, but are completely blind to it when they agree with it.

Say it aint so said:
I think you may need to think this through further.

I've thought it through plenty. Despite your best attempts to employ historical revisionism to downplay what Democrats said in 2016, the fact of the matter is that they running around loudly and incessantly proclaiming that the election had been STOLEN to a more than willing media that chimed in to strongly agree. It's no wonder 67% of Democrats polled believed that vote tallies had been tampered with, since that's exactly what Democrats wanted them to believe. And they didn't even have to say it out loud. All they had to do was make vague, baseless accusations of the election being stolen and let logic do the rest.

probinson · Aug 4, 2025

iluvatar5150 said:
No, you have not articulated any reasons beyond your own incredulity.

I've explained my incredulity. You, in return, have offered wild speculations that were apparently borne from you watching too many action movies.

iluvatar5150 said:
This sort of thing doesn't have to operate on the timeline of a bank heist.

When your analogy falls apart, don't blame me.

iluvatar5150 said:
Why would you assume that they'd make their demands immediately? They've demonstrated their capabilities. It's the computer equivalent of brandishing a weapon.

Do you have any idea how computer systems work? You hack them in 2016 to "make demands" a decade later? That's not exactly the smartest plan.

iluvatar5150 said:
They didn't merely hack into a single one. They hacked into a lot of them.

OK. And what did it to do to the 2016 election results? How do you believe that hacking resulted in a STOLEN!!! election?

iluvatar5150 said:
I agree, completely, but that's a distinction without a difference and a hallmark of good psyops. If you want to cause some trouble, you don't necessarily have to cause all of it yourself.

You don't have to do ANY of it yourself. All you have to do is start a rumor, and get enough useful idiots to believe it.

probinson · Aug 4, 2025

NxNW said:
The issue isn't what how Democratic voters' beliefs. It's about alleged crimes by Obama (there were none) vs actual crimes committed by the Trump organization (of which there were many).

OK. But where do you suppose 67% of Democrat voters got the idea that the election was STOLEN by means of vote tampering?

I know you want to pretend like this is unimportant, but the fact of the matter is Democrats were as guilty of pushing baseless conspiracies and propaganda in 2016 as Republicans were in 2020. Everyone just wants to pretend like it was no big deal, but claims of the STOLEN election were EVERYWHERE. And I ask again, what were they implying when they said the election had been stolen and that Trump was an illegitimate president?

probinson · Aug 4, 2025

Bradskii said:
He said very plainly there was a great deal of evidence re Russian interference.

And there it is. Russian "interference" is such a vague term that it can mean anything from the Russians making a mean meme that is detrimental to Democrats and posting it on social media to hacking into and changing votes depending on what you think it means. Apparently, at the time 67% of Democrats thought it meant Russians had changed vote counts despite no credible evidence that had happened.

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

probinson · Aug 4, 2025

A2SG said:
So you guys believe the Democratic Party is so ruthlessly organized and diabolically efficient as to pull that off without a hitch, and without leaving behind even a trace of evidence?

Seriously?

View attachment 367939

-- A2SG, or maybe you meant some other Democratic Party?

The facts are that the majority of Democrats (67%) believed that Russians had tamped with vote tallies despite no credible evidence. So yes, Democrats were "diabolically efficient" in convincing more than 2/3 of their party that Trump STOLE! the election because Russia changed votes in his favor.

ozso · Aug 4, 2025

For entertainment purposes only:

wing2000 · Aug 4, 2025

ozso said:
That's like a garden variety employee resume. It doesn't stack up against Director of National Intelligence.

Oh really? Shall we review Gabbard's resume? Bring it on.

wing2000 · Aug 4, 2025

BPPLEE said:
Rubio didn’t say anything about Trump in the first quote. Is it possible that he is saying that Russia interfered in the election but there is no evidence that Trump colluded?

That is not the assertion in the report.

ozso · Aug 4, 2025

wing2000 said:
Oh really? Shall we review Gabbard's resume? Bring it on.

The point is the guy doesn't stack up against Director of National Intelligence. I'd like to hear from someone high up in a CIA or government position. Where are they?

Fwiw Gabbard: US House of Representatives. US Army Colonel.

wing2000 · Aug 4, 2025

ozso said:
The point is the guy doesn't stack up against Director of National Intelligence. I'd like to hear from someone high up in a CIA or government position. Where are they?

Fwiw Gabbard: US House of Representatives. US Army Colonel.

...and no expierence in Intelligence.

GoldenBoy89 · Aug 4, 2025

BPPLEE said:
Well is he a full blown idiot on one hand but on the other hand a genius that has taken over all 3 branches of the government?
Surely he can’t be both

What’s that saying about the land of the blind?

A2SG · Aug 4, 2025

probinson said:
The facts are that the majority of Democrats (67%) believed that Russians had tamped with vote tallies despite no credible evidence. So yes, Democrats were "diabolically efficient" in convincing more than 2/3 of their party that Trump STOLE! the election because Russia changed votes in his favor.

They still had more evidence than Trump did.

But, that aside, what did anyone in the Democratic party actually do about that theory? Did Hilary take the issue to court 60+ tines? Did she convince her supporters to "fight like hell" to attempt to prevent certification of the election? Did she call any one of the states she lost and demand they "find" enough votes to change the outcome?

Sure, some felt the 2016 election was stolen, but the response was entirely and significantly different than Trump four years later.

-- A2SG, face it, Democrats did what they usually do, fret and fume for a while, then wind up doing nothing effective about it....

ozso · Aug 4, 2025

wing2000 said:
...and no expierence in Intelligence.

Those in powerful positions in intelligence are the ones who have top level access to everything. Someone can have a 30 years in intelligence, but not that level of clout.

essentialsaltes · Aug 4, 2025

ozso said:
That's like a garden variety employee resume. It doesn't stack up against Director of National Intelligence.

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.

wing2000 · Aug 4, 2025

ozso said:
Those in powerful positions in intelligence are the ones who have top level access to everything. Someone can have a 30 years in intelligence, but not that level of clout.

Yea, she's had access for a few months but yet somehow managed to "find" that Obama carried out a "coup". LOL

wing2000 · Aug 4, 2025

...but Tulsi knows better.

Senate Intelligence Committee (2017)

"The Committee finds that the Intelligence Community met President Obama’s tasking and that the ICA is a sound intelligence product. While the Committee had to rely on agencies that the sensitive information and accesses had been accurately reported, as part of our inquiry the Committee reviewed analytic procedures, interviewed senior intelligence officers well-versed with the information, and based our findings on the entire body of intelligence reporting included in the ICA.

The Committee finds the difference in confidence levels between the NSA and the CIA and FBI on the assessment that “Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances” appropriately represents analytic differences and was reached in a professional and transparent manner.

In all the interviews of those who drafted and prepared the ICA, the Committee heard consistently that analysts were under no politically motivated pressure to reach any conclusions. All analysts expressed that they were free to debate, object to content, and assess confidence levels, as is normal and proper for the analytic process.

......

Conclusion

Finally, the Committee notes that, as is the case with all intelligence questions, information continues to be gathered and analyzed. The Committee believes the conclusions of the ICA are sound, and notes that collection and analysis subsequent to the ICA’s publication continue to reinforce its assessments. The Committee will remain vigilant in its oversight of the ongoing challenges presented by foreign nations attempting to secretly influence U.S. affairs."

Committee Findings on the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment | Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

www.intelligence.senate.gov

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

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

✦

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

✦

E pluribus unum

E pluribus unum

✦

E pluribus unum

We're Still Here

Gumby

✦

Fact-Based Lifeform

E pluribus unum

E pluribus unum

Committee Findings on the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment | Senate Select Committee on Intelligence​

Similar threads

Committee Findings on the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment | Senate Select Committee on Intelligence