I still don’t follow your MAGA reference unless you intend to attribute any negative information about the Obama administration as being inspired by MAGA.
Maga did not produce the disclosed documents I think you would agree with that. I think the disclosed documents show a high level Obama administration effort to modify previous intelligence to serve a political purpose That isn’t MAGA but you also don’t need to agree
Like you, I don’t think anything will come iof this because it is soaked with immunity. Interesting that some of the same players were involved with the 51 intelligence officials hoax
But there could be more that might crack the immunity shell
Nothing will come of it because there is nothing to it. Gabbard is conflating the finding that the Russians weren't able to hack into election systems and change votes (old news) with the idea that there was no Russian influence effort in the 2016 campaign (there was and the President's CIA Director just confirmed that) as the intelligence community found, Mueller (who's investigation was not about Russian hacking into election systems, but about Russian influence and whether there was any coordination with the Trump campaign) found, and the House and Senate committee's that looked into it found. No one ever said that the influence campaign put Trump over the top in 2016, but it's obvious that President Trump can't handle that finding. Here's a good article that explains this:
That's from CNN (but others are reporting the same) so some will dismiss it completely (or not read it), but this one's from National Review's Andrew McCarthy, a critic of the FBI investigation (though he clearly doesn't doubt that Russia tried to influence it in Trump's favor), who also explains how Gabbard is trying to mislead by throwing red meat into the MAGA crowd:
It's a nothing burger, it's almost certainly an effort to distract from the Epstein problem which the President is desperate about. The chances that Gabbard and the President's claims of treasonous activities lead to any actual charges are slim to none, and if they do eke out a charge at the President's bidding the chances of convicting anyone are none. Not slim to none, none.
This post was modified 10 months ago by Aloha Hoosier
Yeah, Gabbards critics are arguing as you stated, conflating hacking and influence. But that isn’t what Gabbard alleges. She argues that the Obama conspired to use known phony evidence to implicate Trump in the Russian influence. We know clapper lied and Comey broke the law in addition to using a ruse to set up Flynn. I have no idea if the documents released, and to be released, will substantiate her allegations.
Yeah, Gabbards critics are arguing as you stated, conflating hacking and influence. But that isn’t what Gabbard alleges. She argues that the Obama conspired to use known phony evidence to implicate Trump in the Russian influence. We know clapper lied and Comey broke the law in addition to using a ruse to set up Flynn. I have no idea if the documents released, and to be released, will substantiate her allegations.
And she's absolutely wrong, and she has denied that Russia tried to influence the election, contradicting the President's own CIA Director. Time for the President to get over the fact that Russia tried to influence the election in his favor. No one has made the claim that it resulted in his election.
This post was modified 10 months ago by Aloha Hoosier
How do you know she is “absolutely wrong” about the Obama administration’s efforts to implicate Trump?
Technically you’re right, but nothing she’s said or released supports that idea. It’s sad that a DNI is so hyper-political and add to the deep divide in the country.
@aloha-hoosier if you can’t come out and say that the Russian cyber campaign had no effect on the 2016 election you are every bit the sour grapes, deluded, pathetic loser you accuse Dbm of being wrt to 2020.
No one has any idea how much of an effect it had and who was swayed by it.
Although the odds are not in your favor of it having zero effect. Like flipping a quarter 1000 times without seeing how it landed and trying to tell us it never landed on heads. May be right but I'm not betting on it.
How do you know she is “absolutely wrong” about the Obama administration’s efforts to implicate Trump?
I would think she would need to provide proof of such. Or is just guilty until proven innocent if the person is a democrat?
If someone makes a statement and then tries to use evidence that doesn't support the statement, then I think it's valid to say said person is absolutely wrong in their statement until they bring forth something that does actually support it. Of course, if she had real evidence, wouldn't she be presenting it in place of just trying to mislead her sheep?
I haven't looked at the thread in a while, but the Senate looked at Russian interference (a REPUBLICAN Senate:
The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee submitted the first part of its five-volume report in July 2019 in which it concluded that the January 2017 Intelligence Community assessment alleging Russian interference was "coherent and well-constructed".
Republicans though wanted to make it clear:
Some Republican Senators wanted to "state more explicitly that Trump's campaign did not coordinate with Russia. They say that while the report shows the Russian government 'inappropriately meddled' in the election, 'then-candidate Trump was not complicit.
I haven't looked at the thread in a while, but the Senate looked at Russian interference (a REPUBLICAN Senate:
The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee submitted the first part of its five-volume report in July 2019 in which it concluded that the January 2017 Intelligence Community assessment alleging Russian interference was "coherent and well-constructed".
Republicans though wanted to make it clear:
Some Republican Senators wanted to "state more explicitly that Trump's campaign did not coordinate with Russia. They say that while the report shows the Russian government 'inappropriately meddled' in the election, 'then-candidate Trump was not complicit.
There is NO DOUBT that Russia tried to interfere. Why is this a three-page thread?
I think your question needs to be rhetorical (because the answer is pretty obvious).
I also think folks are going too far in saying unequivocally that Russia only "tried". Though I don't know of any way of quantifying it, I think you're living in an alternate reality if you think Russian interference didn't have some impact. Heck, consider the indictment against Tenet Media. Those same type of voices are amplified here (and deeply believed without any level of critical thinking) on the daily.
