Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
John Durham concludes FBI should NOT have investigated Trump
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ana the Ist" data-source="post: 77251354" data-attributes="member: 302807"><p>I honestly didn't get the sarcasm at the time. Tone doesn't always come across in digital text. I see it now though...bravo.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is a very normal thing.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You're correct in that I don't understand what your point is. There's plenty of media sources floating all sorts of ideas regarding collusion between Trump and Russia in the months prior to June 2016.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah...he was found guilty of lying to the FBI, but when I last looked into the case, it was sealed and it didn't explain what he was lying about. It's worth noting he wasn't charged with any sort of crime that involved coordinating with Russia. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Which is? Has the case been unsealed and made open to the public?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Documents? You say "documents" as if the Australians provided anything other than allegations. It was after the emails were made public that an Australian diplomat had contacted the FBI and related information that he claimed Papadopoulos gave him months earlier regarding Russias. He said, and I quote....</p><p></p><p><span style="font-family: '-apple-system'"><span style="color: rgb(32, 33, 34)">Downer told </span></span><em><span style="color: rgb(32, 33, 34)"><span style="font-family: '-apple-system'">The Australian</span></span></em><span style="font-family: '-apple-system'"><span style="color: rgb(32, 33, 34)"> in a 28 April 2018 interview that<strong> "nothing [Papadopoulos] said in their meeting indicated Trump himself had been conspiring with the Russians to collect information on Hillary Clinton"</strong>.</span></span></p><p></p><p>Now...if the case has been unsealed and the information regarding whatever Papadopoulos lied about it is available....feel free to point it out.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Presidential candidates would have to be nominated first....otherwise they would be nominees getting defensive briefings.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There's no evidence that Russia influenced the election. Also, posting factual information online about a candidate is better known as reporting.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I wouldn't say it's unprecedented anymore. When it comes to spreading disinformation on a mass scale...the Democratic Party holds the record for its work in 2020.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>By documents do you mean "emails"?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm saying there's an endless number of ways and reasons why Trump would have suspected the Russians. </p><p></p><p>Again, that was the narrative propagated by the left for most of 2016.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah...if you want to go into the incident where they staged opposing protests in the same location I'd enjoy talking about it.</p><p></p><p>I don't recall ever claiming Russia hadn't broken any laws. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Then you're still struggling with the difference between allegations and evidence. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Did he? He eventually said what he had heard from Misfud....something that the FBI had sent agents undercover to confirm but couldn't. I'd be more confident in the "confession" if it wasn't made under duress.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Lol what part of the email shows that?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The email shows a phone call occurred and an offer was made. It doesn't say "we accepted their offer" or "we took their help".</p><p></p><p>That would be a more similar situation to what the Hillary campaign did....when she paid for information on Trump from foreign actors. Do we have any evidence that Trump paid for information about Hillary and then used it as a pretext to accuse Hillary of working with a foreign nation to win the election?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You have an email showing that Russia offered to interfere. That's not the same as interference. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No...he doesn't. You're assuming a lot based on an offer to meet and exchange information that never occurred. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>In other words...you don't believe Russians when they claim to have dirt on your candidate...but when they have dirt on the candidate for the other party?</p><p></p><p>Suddenly it's not disinformation anymore and they're super reliable. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I saw the media suggesting that Trump was working for Putin in WaPo in May....but I did only search WaPo and only went as far back as May. It's a little troublesome to look back at the media in 2016 and see how they weren't only willing to stump for Hillary but also prop up this false narrative about Trump and Putin that led to years of investigation and a lot of wasted time and money. Knowing what I know now about their collaboration to get Biden elected and their willingness to spread disinformation by working with the former intelligence officials who signed a letter....it doesn't seem like they had any integrity even in 2016.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Right.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The claims of "Russian disinformation" being a major factor in the election became part of the Democratic Party effort to censor social media like Twitter and Facebook and ultimately use them against Republicans. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ok...Russia is certainly guilty of hacking and other crimes.</p><p></p><p>That doesn't make them the reason why the Democrats lost.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure...you would have liked it if he validated the idea of Russia interfering in an election to help him win....while he was running for office. Hey, I would have liked it if Hillary admitted she rigged the nomination when she was trying to get nominated...but I understand why that didn't happen. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Are we talking about the same intelligence community that thought Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm pretty sure he wanted an investigation into Burisma and Biden.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ana the Ist, post: 77251354, member: 302807"] I honestly didn't get the sarcasm at the time. Tone doesn't always come across in digital text. I see it now though...bravo. This is a very normal thing. You're correct in that I don't understand what your point is. There's plenty of media sources floating all sorts of ideas regarding collusion between Trump and Russia in the months prior to June 2016. Yeah...he was found guilty of lying to the FBI, but when I last looked into the case, it was sealed and it didn't explain what he was lying about. It's worth noting he wasn't charged with any sort of crime that involved coordinating with Russia. Which is? Has the case been unsealed and made open to the public? Documents? You say "documents" as if the Australians provided anything other than allegations. It was after the emails were made public that an Australian diplomat had contacted the FBI and related information that he claimed Papadopoulos gave him months earlier regarding Russias. He said, and I quote.... [FONT=-apple-system][COLOR=rgb(32, 33, 34)]Downer told [/COLOR][/FONT][I][COLOR=rgb(32, 33, 34)][FONT=-apple-system]The Australian[/FONT][/COLOR][/I][FONT=-apple-system][COLOR=rgb(32, 33, 34)] in a 28 April 2018 interview that[B] "nothing [Papadopoulos] said in their meeting indicated Trump himself had been conspiring with the Russians to collect information on Hillary Clinton"[/B].[/COLOR][/FONT] Now...if the case has been unsealed and the information regarding whatever Papadopoulos lied about it is available....feel free to point it out. Presidential candidates would have to be nominated first....otherwise they would be nominees getting defensive briefings. There's no evidence that Russia influenced the election. Also, posting factual information online about a candidate is better known as reporting. I wouldn't say it's unprecedented anymore. When it comes to spreading disinformation on a mass scale...the Democratic Party holds the record for its work in 2020. By documents do you mean "emails"? I'm saying there's an endless number of ways and reasons why Trump would have suspected the Russians. Again, that was the narrative propagated by the left for most of 2016. Yeah...if you want to go into the incident where they staged opposing protests in the same location I'd enjoy talking about it. I don't recall ever claiming Russia hadn't broken any laws. Then you're still struggling with the difference between allegations and evidence. Did he? He eventually said what he had heard from Misfud....something that the FBI had sent agents undercover to confirm but couldn't. I'd be more confident in the "confession" if it wasn't made under duress. Lol what part of the email shows that? The email shows a phone call occurred and an offer was made. It doesn't say "we accepted their offer" or "we took their help". That would be a more similar situation to what the Hillary campaign did....when she paid for information on Trump from foreign actors. Do we have any evidence that Trump paid for information about Hillary and then used it as a pretext to accuse Hillary of working with a foreign nation to win the election? You have an email showing that Russia offered to interfere. That's not the same as interference. No...he doesn't. You're assuming a lot based on an offer to meet and exchange information that never occurred. In other words...you don't believe Russians when they claim to have dirt on your candidate...but when they have dirt on the candidate for the other party? Suddenly it's not disinformation anymore and they're super reliable. I saw the media suggesting that Trump was working for Putin in WaPo in May....but I did only search WaPo and only went as far back as May. It's a little troublesome to look back at the media in 2016 and see how they weren't only willing to stump for Hillary but also prop up this false narrative about Trump and Putin that led to years of investigation and a lot of wasted time and money. Knowing what I know now about their collaboration to get Biden elected and their willingness to spread disinformation by working with the former intelligence officials who signed a letter....it doesn't seem like they had any integrity even in 2016. Right. The claims of "Russian disinformation" being a major factor in the election became part of the Democratic Party effort to censor social media like Twitter and Facebook and ultimately use them against Republicans. Ok...Russia is certainly guilty of hacking and other crimes. That doesn't make them the reason why the Democrats lost. Sure...you would have liked it if he validated the idea of Russia interfering in an election to help him win....while he was running for office. Hey, I would have liked it if Hillary admitted she rigged the nomination when she was trying to get nominated...but I understand why that didn't happen. Are we talking about the same intelligence community that thought Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation? I'm pretty sure he wanted an investigation into Burisma and Biden. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
John Durham concludes FBI should NOT have investigated Trump
Top
Bottom