RussiaGate is not going away!

Thing1 said:
Pretty big double-standard from you, considering your comments about Hillary.
Click to expand...

no. i'm not defending Flynn- unlike the Dems who say Hillary did nothing wrong-lock him up if it's called for.

"Much ado about nothing" refers to the Russiagate nonsense
 
Thing1 said:
How do you know it's nonsense?
Click to expand...
Clapper found nothing..but think about it -what else could Putin have done for this 'quid pro quo'?
He couldn't have hacked the vote- what else could he have done to advantage Trump?

Hacking the DNC and supposed cutout leaking to wiki is where this begins and ends -
nothing else is really advantageous/feasible for a quid pro quo for both parties.
 
anatta said:
Clapper found nothing..but think about it -what else could Putin have done for this 'quid pro quo'?
He couldn't have hacked the vote- what else could he have done to advantage Trump?

Hacking the DNC and supposed cutout leaking to wiki is where this begins and ends -
nothing else is really advantageous/feasible for a quid pro quo for both parties.
Click to expand...

So, you have no actual information - just speculation.

Thanks for clarifying that. It sounded like you knew something.
 
Thing1 said:
So, you have no actual information - just speculation.
Thanks for clarifying that. It sounded like you knew something.
Click to expand...
what can i possibly know that isn't known?

Use some deductive logic: what else could Putin have offered?
 
anatta said:
the correct answers are "nothing" to both
Click to expand...

No. On the 2nd one, because YOU can't think of anything, doesn't mean there is nothing.

You're as wrong as you could be on this. The FBI is pretty intelligent, as is our intelligence community. If it's worth conducting a criminal investigation, I'm sure they have thought about questions like yours. Get over yourself, and let this play out. If it truly is nothing, you can do a few dozen "nyah nyah" threads.
 
Thing1 said:
No. On the 2nd one, because YOU can't think of anything, doesn't mean there is nothing.

You're as wrong as you could be on this. The FBI is pretty intelligent, as is our intelligence community. If it's worth conducting a criminal investigation, I'm sure they have thought about questions like yours. Get over yourself, and let this play out. If it truly is nothing, you can do a few dozen "nyah nyah" threads.
Click to expand...
so iask you again..what could have Putin offered for a quid pro quo? -if you can't think of anything he could have done
for the election...then there isn't anything there.

Comey is chasing rabbits wherever they go,down whatever rabbit hole. He's content to come out of this with a few scalps- like maybe Carter page, and Flynn,or possible Manafort.
But again --what could they have done/offered to "impeach" Trump?
 
anatta said:
so iask you again..what could have Putin offered for a quid pro quo? -if you can't think of anything he could have done
for the election...then there isn't anything there.

Comey is chasing rabbits wherever they go,down whatever rabbit hole. He's content to come out of this with a few scalps- like maybe Carter page, and Flynn,or possible Manafort.
But again --what could they have done/offered to "impeach" Trump?
Click to expand...

The bolded is as flawed as any bad logic I have ever heard, anywhere.

Maybe that's why you're so misguided on this issue, and have started so many pointless threads? Step back for a bit, and try to imagine a word where you don't know every single thing that there is to know.
 
Thing1 said:
The bolded is as flawed as any bad logic I have ever heard, anywhere.

Maybe that's why you're so misguided on this issue, and have started so many pointless threads? Step back for a bit, and try to imagine a word where you don't know every single thing that there is to know.
Click to expand...

ok kettle black

Russia's influence on the election was based on getting facts out there that would not have under ordinary circumstances been out there. Simple as that.
If you want to rant and rave about how important facts are, you can not complain when facts are used against someone, no matter the source or target.
 
Thing1 said:
The bolded is as flawed as any bad logic I have ever heard, anywhere.

Maybe that's why you're so misguided on this issue, and have started so many pointless threads? Step back for a bit, and try to imagine a word where you don't know every single thing that there is to know.
Click to expand...
what methodology ( or means) would Putin have used to ensure a Trump election.

we know the IC says he hacked and released as a cutout to wiki.
WHAT ELSE COULD HAVE BEEN DONE??? that was done?????????????
 
Darth Omar said:
Liberals and anti-Trump hacks, think this through:

Clapper said there was no evidence of collusion---while Obama was in office. Obama knew his legacy was going to be blown up by Trump after January.

Yet, yet, yet lol, Clapper could find no evidence of collusion. Let that sink in.
Click to expand...

Spin. There's a nice long article at the link.

The White House made a series of misleading statements in an effort to put its best spin on a House intelligence committee hearing into Russia’s attempts to influence the 2016 presidential campaign:

  • During the hearing, the official White House Twitter account posted this: “The NSA and FBI tell Congress that Russia did not influence electoral process.” FBI Director James Comey directly refuted that tweet at the hearing by saying, “It’s never something that we looked at.”
  • The White House also tweeted that former intelligence director James Clapper was “right” to say there was “no evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump Campaign.” But Clapper said he had no such information “at the time,” meaning before he left office in January.
  • White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer falsely said that “every person, Republican and Democrat, that has been briefed” on the investigation has concluded “there is no collusion and that that’s over.” Some have said there is circumstantial evidence that warrants further investigation.
  • The White House tweeted that the FBI director “refuses to deny he briefed President Obama on calls made by Michael Flynn to Russia,” suggesting that Comey’s response was significant. It wasn’t. Comey repeatedly said he was “not going to talk about U.S. persons.”

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/spinning-the-intel-hearing/
 
coolbreeze said:
ok kettle black

Russia's influence on the election was based on getting facts out there that would not have under ordinary circumstances been out there. Simple as that.
If you want to rant and rave about how important facts are, you can not complain when facts are used against someone, no matter the source or target.
Click to expand...

Yet Russia had facts on trump but failed to use them. Maybe you should ask yourself why.

Putin would have done anything to keep Hillary from being elected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top