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

Servus · Aug 4, 2025

wing2000 said:
Yea, she's had access for a few months but yet somehow managed to "find" that Obama carried out a "coup". LOL

More likely she delegated that task to top personnel on the ODNI staff of 1800 people. Folks often seem to think top ranking government officials don't have huge staffs and instead do every task on their own.

probinson · Aug 4, 2025

A2SG said:
Sure, some felt the 2016 election was stolen,

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"?

Servus · Aug 4, 2025

essentialsaltes said:
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.

What's her level of power and clout in US Intelligence, and the US government, plus a top level staff, compared to what's-his-name who was a subordinate?

wing2000 · Aug 4, 2025

ozso said:
More likely she delegated that task to top personnel on the ODNI staff of 1800 people. Folks often seem to think top ranking government officials don't have huge staffs and instead do every task on their own.

She probably delegated to some political appointees.

wing2000 · Aug 4, 2025

ozso said:
What's her level of power and clout in US Intelligence, and the US government, plus a top level staff, compared to what's-his-name who was a subordinate?

"Clout" counts for nothing when one's goal is to defame a former POTUS.

The "whats-his-name" CIA analyst's prouct was reviewed by multiple investigations, including a criminal invesitgation led by Durham.....none of those investigations confirmed the validity of the 2017 report.

Servus · Aug 4, 2025

wing2000 said:
She probably delegated to some political appointees.

So she passed over top people in ODNI with many years of experience in favor of some flunkies. Sure. The problem with extreme partisan bias is it tends to cloud objectivity.

Say it aint so · Aug 4, 2025

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

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

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

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.

Absolutely.

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.

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.

No, the media reported others who making the claim the election was stolen. If you don't see the difference and the direct link to FOXmedia and their personalities and the GOP, then I don't know what to say. Take a step back and look again. There is some blinding being done here. That long diatribe again is you in the end enacting some Vulcan mind meld claiming reports that didn't make a claim, is making people think voting tallies where changed. That's your unsupported non factual no direct causation opinion.

Servus · Aug 4, 2025

wing2000 said:
"Clout" counts for nothing when one's goal is to defame a former POTUS.

Clout counts for everything when it comes to gaining access to material only someone who's in a position like director of ODIN can manage.

wing2000 said:
The "whats-his-name" CIA analyst's prouct was reviewed by multiple investigations, including a criminal invesitgation led by Durham.....none of those investigations confirmed the validity of the 2017 report.

Durum is another subordinate. If Michael Rogers the Director of ODNI in 2017 had been in charge of it, that would be a lot more convincing.

essentialsaltes · Aug 4, 2025

ozso said:
More likely she delegated that task to top personnel on the ODNI staff of 1800 people. Folks often seem to think top ranking government officials don't have huge staffs and instead do every task on their own.

Like the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Only a moron would think she was personally responsible for the task of estimating the jobs numbers.

Servus · Aug 4, 2025

essentialsaltes said:
Like the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Only a moron would think she was personally responsible for the task of estimating the jobs numbers.

She was personally in charge.

probinson · Aug 4, 2025

Say it aint so said:
No, the media reported others who making the claim the election was stolen.

Why are you denying reality? The media not only reported what others said, they fueled the narrative by offering their own opinions and speculation.

Say it aint so said:
If you don't see the difference and the direct link to FOXmedia and their personalities and the GOP, then I don't know what to say.

Of course you don't, because while you can see the propaganda coming from Fox, you seem completely blinded to the propaganda that spews from other media sources.

Say it aint so said:
Take a step back and look again.

At what? Democrats ranting about a STOLEN!!! election? Democrats calling Trump an "illegitimate president?" Both of those things would indicate that something shady happened with votes in the election. That's why they said it again, and again, and again, and again until more than 2/3 of Democrats believed that Russia had tampered with vote counts.

Say it aint so said:
That long diatribe again is you in the end enacting some Vulcan mind meld claiming reports that didn't make a claim, is making people think voting tallies where changed. That's your unsupported non factual no direct causation opinion.

So what's your alternative explanation? What do you think they meant when they said the election was STOLEN!!! and that Trump was an "illegitimate president?" Have you even watched the compilation video I posted? You should. Then you might understand just how much Democrats and the media were gaslighting the public.

Here it is again, for your reference:

Say it aint so · Aug 4, 2025

probinson said:
Why are you denying reality? The media not only reported what others said, they fueled the narrative by offering their own opinions and speculation.

Of course you don't, because while you can see the propaganda coming from Fox, you seem completely blinded to the propaganda that spews from other media sources.

At what? Democrats ranting about a STOLEN!!! election? Democrats calling Trump an "illegitimate president?" Both of those things would indicate that something shady happened with votes in the election. That's why they said it again, and again, and again, and again until more than 2/3 of Democrats believed that Russia had tampered with vote counts.

So what's your alternative explanation? What do you think they meant when they said the election was STOLEN!!! and that Trump was an "illegitimate president?" Have you even watched the compilation video I posted? You should. Then you might understand just how much Democrats and the media were gaslighting the public.

Here it is again, for your reference:

Yes, Democrats saying the election was stolen, not the news media making that absolute claim. View your video with a little more focus. I say FOX is in a league of it's own given the Dominion lawsuit where we see not only did their news personalities have Trump on speed dial, advising him, but that outlet is now the conduit for how he fills his cabinet. There is now 23 of them. Let me know of news personalities were literally on the campaign trail with a candidate other than FOX. I can't think of any. So yes your equivalency claim in fact, to use your word is"blind". Moreover, I don't have to have an alternative explanation. It's your claim, and it's fact deficient.

probinson · Aug 4, 2025

Say it aint so said:
Yes, Democrats saying the election was stolen, not the news media making that absolute claim.

The Washington Post ran a headline that said "The 2016 Election was stolen. Got a nicer way to say that?"

Say it aint so said:
I say FOX is in a league of it's own given the Dominion lawsuit where we see not only did their news personalities have Trump on speed dial, advising him, but that outlet is now the conduit for how he fills his cabinet. There is now 23 of them. Let me know of news personalities were literally on the campaign trail with a candidate other than FOX. I can't think of any.

You seem enamored with Fox for some reason. I couldn't tell you the last time I watched Fox News.

Say it aint so said:
Moreover, I don't have to have an alternative explanation. It's your claim, and it's fact deficient.

I would posit that you CANNOT offer an alternative explanation, because there isn't one. Democrats and the media propagandized people into believing (with no evidence) that the election was STOLEN!!! and the result was more than 2/3 of Democrats believed that Russia changed votes to get Trump elected.

DaisyDay · Aug 4, 2025

probinson said:
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"?

Comey publicly, against department protocol, announced two weeks before election day that he was reopening the investigation against Clinton. He did not publicly close it again until just two day before the election.

However, Clinton graciously conceded the day after the election. Donald, to this day, insists he won in 2020 despite his election officials, lawyers, Ivanka, etc. telling him otherwise. He went on to try to get the Senate to vote on his fake slate of electors - Clinton never did anything akin to that; at most, she wrote a book and made remarks.

probinson · Aug 4, 2025

DaisyDay said:
Comey publicly, against department protocol, announced two weeks before election day that he was reopening the investigation against Clinton. He did not publicly close it again until just two day before the election.

Perhaps, but that is not why or how they were claiming the election had been STOLEN!!! from them. At the 2:22 mark in the video I posted above, there is a lady off camera speaking to Biden at a rally who says (of Trump), "He's illegitimate, and my biggest fear is that he's going to do it again with the help of Vlad, his best pal, it's terrifying." Biden responded by saying "Would you be my vice presidential candidate?" Why? Because she was furthering the narrative that they wanted their base to believe that the Russians changed votes to help Trump get elected. And it worked. More than 2/3 of Democrats believed the conspiracy theory that Russia had changed votes in Trump's favor despite no credible evidence.

DaisyDay said:
However, Clinton graciously conceded the day after the election.

Yeah, I don't think that's an accurate recounting of events. Clinton may have made a concession speech, but people who "graciously concede" something don't go on a media tour talking about how the election was stolen from them and how their opponent was illegitimately elected.

DaisyDay said:
Donald, to this day, insists he won in 2020 despite his election officials, lawyers, Ivanka, etc. telling him otherwise.

Trump still thinks he won 2020. Lots of Republicans do also. They're all wrong.

Say it aint so · Aug 4, 2025

probinson said:
The Washington Post ran a headline that said "The 2016 Election was stolen. Got a nicer way to say that?"

You seem enamored with Fox for some reason. I couldn't tell you the last time I watched Fox News.

I would posit that you CANNOT offer an alternative explanation, because there isn't one. Democrats and the media propagandized people into believing (with no evidence) that the election was STOLEN!!! and the result was more than 2/3 of Democrats believed that Russia changed votes to get Trump elected.

That WaPo is an opinion piece which neither of us have access to read what they are saying. I don't have to offer an opinion. If you want to roll with your "God of gaps" version of the media did it, then again. you're making a wishing well argument.

probinson · Aug 4, 2025

Say it aint so said:
That WaPo is an opinion piece which neither of us have access to read what they are saying.

Yes. But you said the media was just repeating what other people said. That's clearly untrue. The media was running all kinds of op-eds, interviewing people who said Trump was illegitimate, agreeing with them on-air, etc., etc. They weren't just reporting what people said. They were actively involved in pushing the narrative that the election had been STOLEN!!!

Say it aint so said:
I don't have to offer an opinion.

You are correct. You don't have to offer an opinion on anything. So I am left to speculate the main reason is because you cannot offer a logical alternative explanation as to why more than 2/3 of Democrats believed the conspiracy theory that Russia had changed votes in Trump's favor.

Say it aint so · Aug 4, 2025

probinson said:
Yes. But you said the media was just repeating what other people said. That's clearly untrue. The media was running all kinds of op-eds, interviewing people who said Trump was illegitimate, agreeing with them on-air, etc., etc. They weren't just reporting what people said. They were actively involved in pushing the narrative that the election had been STOLEN!!!

You are correct. You don't have to offer an opinion on anything. So I am left to speculate the main reason is because you cannot offer a logical alternative explanation as to why more than 2/3 of Democrats believed the conspiracy theory that Russia had changed votes in Trump's favor.

You can go ahead and opine on an opinion piece YOU haven't read, but that seems to be your M.O.
And yes, you like the flat earthers or those who think Elvis is still alive, are free to speculate to your hearts content.

DaisyDay · Aug 4, 2025

probinson said:
The Washington Post ran a headline that said "The 2016 Election was stolen. Got a nicer way to say that?"

That was the title of a guest editorial, not 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/

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

iluvatar5150 · Aug 4, 2025

DaisyDay said:
That was the title of a guest editorial, not 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

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:

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

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

<><

Legend

<><

E pluribus unum

E pluribus unum

<><

Well-Known Member

<><

Fact-Based Lifeform

<><

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Well-Known Member

Similar threads