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

The Barbarian · Wednesday at 8:29 PM

probinson said:
Clinton made a concession speech, but her concession was anything but gracious.

Well, let's take a look...

"Last night, I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans. This is not the outcome we wanted or we worked so hard for and I’m sorry that we did not win this election for the values we share and the vision we hold for our country."

Compare it to Trump's statement after he lost to Biden. He's still whining about how unfair it was, and how he was cheated out of his rightful win. C'mon.

probinson said:
- **September 2017**: Less than a year later, Clinton, in an NPR interview, said she would not rule out questioning the election’s legitimacy if deeper Russian interference was uncovered, signaling early doubts about the process.

So if the Russians materially affected the outcome she thought it would bring the legitimacy of the election into question? I would certainly think so.

probinson said:
Claims intensified. In June, former President Jimmy Carter stated that Russian interference likely caused Trump’s win, suggesting he was not legitimately elected.

I thought you said it was Hillary Clinton. This is starting to get interesting...

probinson said:
**May 2019**: Clinton explicitly claimed the election was “stolen” from her during a speaking event in Los Angeles, pointing to Russian interference and voter suppression.

Link doesn't work. A pattern emerges here...

probinson said:
In summary, Clinton and some Democrats began raising concerns within months of the November 2016 election

From your link:
Hillary Clinton has contended multiple times that Russian interference in the 2016 election affected the results. Indeed, she told an audience in 2019 that, “You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you.”

However, equating her response to that election with the Republican response to the 2020 election is a stretch. Clinton immediately conceded her loss and she did not take steps to reverse it.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, refused to concede to Joe Biden in 2020 and launched legal battles across the country founded on baseless conspiracy theories to try to overturn the results.

We now know that Russian efforts did harm Clinton. The question is whether or not the collusion between Trump's people and Russian sources was enough to swing the election. We know that the Russians thought it did:

CIA recorded Russian intelligence officers congratulating themselves on winning the election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-intercepts-capture-senior-russian-officials-celebrating-trump-win/2017/01/05/d7099406-d355-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html

Bradskii · Wednesday at 8:51 PM

probinson said:
Just because Trump does something that I agree with does not mean that I support Trump in general.

You said that you'd never supported Trump. Period. That's been shown to be wrong.

A New Dawn · Wednesday at 9:00 PM

rambot said:
It's true.

Trump and all of his supporters are the only ones with the answers.

We outsiders can't be trusted because our well is poisoned.

Well, when the left msm gets its marching orders, this is what we get. Just how reliable is it, really?

A New Dawn · Wednesday at 9:03 PM

GoldenBoy89 said:
Can I just say, and this is totally unrelated to the thread but, thanks for using the correct name of the Democratic Party instead of the oft used and super annoying “democrat party” I see so much from the right.

The main reason that many people shorten it to Democrat, rather than using Democratic, is because the word democratic has a specific definition that mostly doesn’t pertain to the party.

A New Dawn · Wednesday at 9:07 PM

essentialsaltes said:
You seem to be having difficulty with pronouns. Iluvatar (and I) have already examined the documents. But we haven't seen much evidence that 'you guys' have done so.

I saw lots of evidence in Peter Strozk’s and Lisa Page’s text messages (don’t know if they are part of the evidence (but if not, they should be)) when they were released.

essentialsaltes · Wednesday at 9:42 PM

A New Dawn said:
I saw lots of evidence in Peter Strozk’s and Lisa Page’s text messages

They got a total of $2 million dollars in their settlement for wrongful termination and violation of the Privacy Act.

A New Dawn · Wednesday at 9:47 PM

essentialsaltes said:
They got a total of $2 million dollars in their settlement for wrongful termination and violation of the Privacy Act.

And what does that have to do with anything? The texts show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the FBI was deeply biased and had a contingency plan (the Steele Dossier) to keep Trump out of office.

essentialsaltes · Wednesday at 9:55 PM

A New Dawn said:
And what does that have to do with anything? The texts show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the FBI was deeply biased

There's a lot of people at FBI. One anti-Trumper leaves me with a great deal of doubt about whether the organization as a whole was deeply biased, much less did anything illegal. Texts to your girlfriend is not an insurrection.

rambot · Wednesday at 9:58 PM

A New Dawn said:
Well, when the left msm gets its marching orders, this is what we get. Just how reliable is it, really?

That's right.

We get marching orders. You are free thinking researchers who arrive without bias at your decisions that support the only person who can save America.

Liberals are an unthinking mob who all act as an unthinking mob.

A New Dawn · Wednesday at 10:20 PM

essentialsaltes said:
There's a lot of people at FBI. One anti-Trumper leaves me with a great deal of doubt about whether the organization as a whole was deeply biased, much less did anything illegal. Texts to your girlfriend is not an insurrection.

I don’t believe the organization as a whole was biased, but the ones at the top calling the orders were. And unfortunately, when that happens, that leaves room to doubt the veracity of the whole organization.

Texts to your girlfriend plotting to overthrow the “peaceful transfer of power”, especially when those orders come from the very top layers of government, very much do amount to an insurrection.

So are you saying that when my husband and I plot to do something illegal and the cops take my phone and read my texts I can sue them for breach of privacy and get $2M ? I’m sure there are a lot of criminals who were put away for that very reason who will be interested to know they have been wrongfully imprisoned.

BPPLEE · Wednesday at 10:25 PM

essentialsaltes said:
There's a lot of people at FBI. One anti-Trumper leaves me with a great deal of doubt about whether the organization as a whole was deeply biased, much less did anything illegal. Texts to your girlfriend is not an insurrection.

No but it's rather stupid if you use government issued phones

The Barbarian · Wednesday at 10:31 PM

BPPLEE said:
No but it's rather stupid if you use government issued phones

Tell that to our secretary of defense.

BPPLEE · Wednesday at 10:37 PM

The Barbarian said:
Tell that to our secretary of defense.

Did he text his girlfriend about plans to frame a president?

Hans Blaster · Wednesday at 10:52 PM

BPPLEE said:
Did he text his girlfriend about plans to frame a president?

And neither did Pete Strozk.

eclipsenow · Wednesday at 10:59 PM

probinson said:
Hmm. When something is classified as "materially misleading",

This is standard cherry-picking. Just rinse and repeat those adjectives one wants to highlight - without actually referring to what those adjectives described. Footage of Fox News reporters at a Trump rally without context. Failing to mention Social Media.

Dude - Sky News IS Australia's version of Fox. If they had more serious objections to extract from the 60 page PDF from ACMA - don't you think they would have shared it?

Otherwise, the ABC's reporting about Trump spreading the Big Lie, the ties with FOX, and the horrific outcomes on Jan 06 all stand.

Oh - and what were the correspondingly urgent documentaries about Hillary's "Big Lie"?

There were none - because the Russian hacking of her emails happened.
The $10 million Russian payments to Social Media influencers happened.

It's hard to quantify what the actual effect was and how many votes might have shifted due to these and other factors - but these are historical facts.

But hey - just cherry pick your own version of reality and repeat "See! They're the same! They've BOTH LOST THE PLOT!"

And just keep reasserting how you don't focus on 'gradations'.

Uh, no.

History is judging MAGA and Trump.
The world is watching.
We saw.
We know.

A2SG · Wednesday at 11:12 PM

probinson said:
Nothing, except riots across America, calls to override the electoral college, petitions to make Clinton President. You know. Democracy as it was intended.

Hmmm....must have missed all that. Can't imagine why. Care to provide some documentation, so I can see what I missed the first time around?

NOTE: I did see the images from various protests around that time, but failed to see any mention of a stolen election being the reason for the violence that ensued. Maybe you could provide that, if possible?

-- A2SG, not yet calling it hyperbole, but I do reserve the right to do so at some point....

Bradskii · Wednesday at 11:29 PM

BPPLEE said:
Did he text his girlfriend about plans to frame a president?

Much worse. He put the lives of service men and women at risk.

eclipsenow · Thursday at 1:24 AM

The Barbarian said:
You're resorting to facts again. Typical liberal.

Thanks - I needed that!

eclipsenow · Thursday at 5:23 AM

probinson said:
Sigh. I'm too lazy to go find all the instances this was stated, so here's an AI summary with links (emphasis mine):

Hillary Clinton and some Democrats began questioning the legitimacy of the 2016 presidential election shortly after it occurred, with specific claims of the election being "stolen" or tainted emerging within months and continuing for years. Here’s a timeline based on available information:

- **November 9, 2016**: Clinton conceded the election to Donald Trump the day after the vote, acknowledging his victory but not yet raising claims of illegitimacy.
(Clinton said 2016 was tainted, but didn't try to change it)

- **September 2017**: Less than a year later, Clinton, in an NPR interview, said she would not rule out questioning the election’s legitimacy if deeper Russian interference was uncovered, signaling early doubts about the process.
(https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/hillary-clinton-russia-2016-election/index.html)

- **2018**: Claims intensified. In June, former President Jimmy Carter stated that Russian interference likely caused Trump’s win, suggesting he was not legitimately elected.
(Did Democrats suggest 2016 presidential election was stolen?)

- **May 2019**: Clinton explicitly claimed the election was “stolen” from her during a speaking event in Los Angeles, pointing to Russian interference and voter suppression.
(https://www.usatoday.com/story/news....com/politics/hillary-clinton-election-stolen)

- **September 2019**: In a CBS interview, Clinton called Trump an “illegitimate president” and reiterated that the election was not “on the level,” citing Russian hacking and other factors.
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html)

- **October 2020**: Clinton continued to assert in an interview with *The Atlantic* that the 2016 election “was not on the level,” emphasizing Russian interference and voter suppression, though she noted the full details were still unclear.
(Hillary Clinton Maintains 2016 Election ‘Was Not On the Level’: ‘We Still Don’t Know What Really Happened’)

Other Democrats, like Rep. John Lewis and Sen. Bernie Sanders, expressed concerns about the election’s integrity in early 2017, focusing on Russian interference rather than vote-counting fraud. These claims persisted into 2020 and beyond, often tied to Russian hacking of Democratic emails and voter suppression allegations, but they did not involve accusations of fraudulent vote counting, unlike some Republican claims about 2020.
(Did Democrats suggest 2016 presidential election was stolen?)
(https://www.jsonline.com/story/news...mocrats-suggest-2016-presidential-election-w/)

In summary, Clinton and some Democrats began raising concerns within months of the November 2016 election, with explicit “stolen” claims emerging by 2019, roughly two and a half years later, and continuing through at least 2020. The concerns centered on external interference and campaign-related issues, not ballot fraud
(Clinton said 2016 was tainted, but didn't try to change it)

Now try to remember 3 things.

1. Unlike Trump, she had grounds to say these things!
2. Unlike Trump - your timetable above stretches across years. That many wouldn't even cover an afternoon allotment of Trump's bellyaching and Tweeting in his peak mania phase about legitimately losing the 2020 election.
3. Trump started claiming "Quite frankly, we WON this election!" on election night! His NPD went into overdrive and he was a sore, sulky loser right from election night!

So where are we?

Reality check - Russia did the things, and Hillary rightly mentioned it but handed over power peacefully anyway.
Trump lost the election, then LIED about it being stolen - and people DIED at the Capitol and Fox got find 2/3 billion dollars for repeating his fraud.

A New Dawn · Thursday at 6:48 AM

Hans Blaster said:
And neither did Pete Strozk.

Yes, yes he did. He didn’t text the specific plan to her but he said there was a plan. Too bad that the FBI agents embedded with the proud boys who came up with the plan to storm the Capitol didn’t text it to their girlfriends

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

Crabby Old White Guy

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

Fact-Based Lifeform

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

Fact-Based Lifeform

Senior Member

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

On August Recess

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

Gumby

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

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

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

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

Similar threads