Is Russiagate Really Hillarygate?

[stabetha]

Forbes leads with "according to an insider account". They link a book on Amazon.

This is not a Forbes article. This is a book review.

And I find it questionable that the story about Russian hacking came out 24 hour after she lost, when it's been widely accepted in intelligence circles that they knew about it before the election. Hell, Trump himself asked why Obama didn't stop it.

Oh, and I'll bet this book doesn't mention Kushner meeting a Kremlin lawyer and also a spy.

EDIT: Basically, what @slyphofspace said.

wow now she's a "Kremlin lawyer" rofl

- - - Updated - - -

One of these topics is being investigated by multiple congressional committees as well as multiple law enforcement/intelligence agencies.

The other is a work of fiction about a time traveling wizard who isn't very good at what they do.

Spoilers - Hillary is the time traveling wizard in the work of fiction, and even conservative sites like Red State are mocking how aggressively stupid this "theory" is.

You sound an alot like the "But Benghazi" folks from a few years back

[ati87]

a. I'm done discussing this with the type of posters who go around acting like political experts on this site
b. lack of formal charges being brought about doesn't mean something has been debunked. That is a gross misuse of the word. Especially in the world of politics.
c. If Trump did something wrong then put him in jail. Hillary's guilt or lack thereof doesn't excuse wrong doing by Trump. You are one of those anti Trump zealots though who thinks anyone who sees the Clintons for being the corrupt career politicians that they are is a right wing lunatic. How quaint.

Oh get of it, if H Clinton did anything wrong then one would think that decades worth of investigations would have found anything and at this point brining up Clinton is just a pathetic attempt of deflecting.

Also the reason why their aren't formal chargers towards any Clinton is because after dozen or so investigations by republicans the only thing wrongdoing they found was that Bill Clinton lied about getting a blowjob.

So I hope you are done discussing this because it's kind of pathetic at this point when right-wingers still bring up Clinton twice a month.

[Edge-]

You sound an alot like the "But Benghazi" folks from a few years back

Not really, I don't believe there was ever a serious law enforcement investigation into that, just a partisan committee where the Democrats were pretty open about how much of a sham it quickly turned out to be.

Meanwhile, the congressional committees have bipartisan support, with some exceptions from shady fuckers like Nunes.

So no, not really the same thing at all.

[stabetha]

Not really, I don't believe there was ever a serious law enforcement investigation into that, just a partisan committee where the Democrats were pretty open about how much of a sham it quickly turned out to be.

Meanwhile, the congressional committees have bipartisan support, with some exceptions from shady fuckers like Nunes.

So no, not really the same thing at all.

And the Benghazi folks believed the same horse shit.

[Edge-]

And the Benghazi folks believed the same horse shit.

If you ignore all the context I presented in my post, so like...all of it, sure, I guess you're right. But unfortunately, that context exists.

Does it mean that anyone is guilty? No, that's not how our justice system works. But it absolutely ratchets up the seriousness of the matter well above and beyond the sham that Benghazi ended up being, especially by the 3rd of what ended up being what...8 investigations led purely by Republicans looking to nail Hillary on anything? I mean, they were caught multiple times accidentally admitting that the investigation was primarily to discredit and damage Hillary's reputation/credibility/political future, for fucks sake.

[Felya]

wow now she's a "Kremlin lawyer" rofl

You saying she was misrepresented to Trump in the emails he released? You saying Don jr is so stupid, he showed that he was seeking Russian government's help, even though they lied? I don't think that helps Don jr, just the Russians. It doesn't change Don jr agreeing to meet with Russian government officials, just that he is gullible.

You sound an alot like the "But Benghazi" folks from a few years back

Hillary spoke at the hearings under oath. Threads on the topic were still not closed. Romney him self fucked up during the debates to show how little substance there was in distinguishing between a 'terrorist act' and an 'act of terror'.

[ati87]

And the Benghazi folks believed the same horse shit.

They (republicans) investigated Benghazi 8 times and every single time they drew the same conclusion

Plus

Not sure which investigation it was (think 8) but at some point the lead Republican investigator openly admitted that the entire thing was a joke.

[Jastall]

You are like a child and I am done trying to have a reasonable discussion on this with a child. I know this may rankle you or w/e but I am being perfectly honest here. You and a few others simply see everything and everyone through your Trump lenses and can't see the forest for the trees. I am out. Also, when multiple people refer to what I mentioned initially as being fake news and having been debunked then yes they are both insinuating that a company like the NYT is fake news and lieing themselves about what has already been proven. There is an established connection but Hillary wasn't charged with wrong doing(which I never said she was in the first place). This has to do with the idea of people who live in glass houses not throwing stones. Not whether Hillary should be in jail right now.

What I actually read here is ''I don't have a counter-argument so I'm just going to flip the chessboard and pretend that makes me the better person''.

[Hobb]

We Trump supporters decided to break that corruption chain.

Right...and Hitler was a saint

[Deleted]

Right...and Hitler was a saint

LOL - still using the "Hitler" line? Man, you need to update your outrage, get a better approach.

[masterhorus8]

LOL - still using the "Hitler" line? Man, you need to update your outrage, get a better approach.

[Caolela]

It actually does, to an extreme actually. Just because you are blind to it, doesn't change that. You just made an argument, that Trump does not want to go after NSA declassifying its info on Russia, because he will get killed. Not because it might make this whole Russia thing worse for Trump, but because he will get killed.

If saying that Trump refuses to go after evidence that would clear him of all this conspiracy, because that evidence would lead to his murder. I don't know what supporting him is... not only do you believe that there is evidence NSA has that would clear Trump, you have an excuse of him fearing for his life for not doing it. That is a lot more defense for Trump, than even most Trump supporters on this forum.

I will also want to point out, that Guilliani, who you claimed was part of this illuminati cult, that included hiding debris of the largest terrorist attack on US soil... was the runner up to being Secretary of State under Trump. The winner? Tellison, an Exxon CEO who has a lot of dealings with Russia. Get your story straight...

Apparently small minds can't understand that opposing one person/group for their stupidity or corruption (Hillary/Dem camp) does not mean you support their opponents (Trump). I've said a million times I don't support either because they're two sides of the same oligarchy. But anyone who buys this Russia hacking story is pretty gullible...or...they know it's not true but are blind partisans.

And "Illuminati"? Funny but I've never used that term about Giuliani or use it at all in fact. Also, I've posted about Tillerson and his Exxon scumbaggery right after he was picked for SoS.

So how about you get your story straight.

[Edge-]

But anyone who buys this Russia hacking story is pretty gullible...or...they know it's not true but are blind partisans.

I mean, if you ignore our intelligence community and state election commissions, sure. Why would you want to listen to either of them, considering they'd be the very people to be able to tell you if there were any hacking attempts, and if so who they were done by?

Who do you recommend we listen to instead?

[Caolela]

I mean, if you ignore our intelligence community and state election commissions, sure. Why would you want to listen to either of them, considering they'd be the very people to be able to tell you if there were any hacking attempts, and if so who they were done by?

Who do you recommend we listen to instead?

Well Edge, if you'd been paying attention I've said for months in several threads that people should be looking at what the former high-ranking NSA whistleblowers have said on this. IOW, if anything was hacked that NSA would already have the data on the DNC and Podesta emails and would know who the culprits are. Instead, we get these leaks and false stories blown out of all proportion.

[Orbitus]

Well Edge, if you'd been paying attention I've said for months in several threads that people should be looking at what the former high-ranking NSA whistleblowers have said on this. IOW, if anything was hacked that NSA would already have the data on the DNC and Podesta emails and would know who the culprits are. Instead, we get these leaks and false stories blown out of all proportion.

What false stories? And also, there is a mountain of evidence that Russia hacked the election. You just choose to ignore it. Just like every other person that is in denial that Russia meddled in our election.

[Caolela]

What false stories? And also, there is a mountain of evidence that Russia hacked the election. You just choose to ignore it. Just like every other person that is in denial that Russia meddled in our election.

There is not one single goddamned bit of credible, verifiable evidence extant that I've seen yet. It is all "our best guesstimation and conclusions" that is easily spun into a hyped up pronunciation of "guilt".

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/...ut-secret.html

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/...on-emails.html

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/...-election.html

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/...ng-report.html

[Cthulhu 2020]

There is not one single goddamned bit of credible, verifiable evidence extant that I've seen yet. It is all "our best guesstimation and conclusions" that is easily spun into a hyped up pronunciation of "guilt".

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/...ut-secret.html

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/...on-emails.html

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/...-election.html

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/...ng-report.html

If this washingtonblog is your preferred source of information, that would explain A LOT. Mostly the conspiracy theories and screaming "SHEEPLE" at everyone who listens to our intelligence community/election commission.

[Caolela]

If this washingtonblog is your preferred source of information, that would explain A LOT. Mostly the conspiracy theories and screaming "SHEEPLE" at everyone who listens to our intelligence community/election commission.

Yeah not really. I'd much sooner take Bill Binney's word for it (the man who invented NSA's data-gathering program, and left because they turned it illegal), and Tom Drake's, J. Kirk Wiebe's, Ed Loomis', and Diane Roarks' (former Congressional aide in charge of NSA oversight) than some pack of paid shills in the Dem Party and MSM.

That group has also stated this and much more on many other venues, not just that blog site. They've even had MSM coverage on PBS, who did a 'Frontline' episode on the spying issue a few years ago, etc. and so on.

If you have trouble reading more that two sentences or with comprehension, that's not my problem.

[unfilteredJW]

There is not one single goddamned bit of credible, verifiable evidence extant that I've seen yet. It is all "our best guesstimation and conclusions" that is easily spun into a hyped up pronunciation of "guilt".

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/...ut-secret.html

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/...on-emails.html

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/...-election.html

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/...ng-report.html

Holy shit.

It all makes so much sense.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Yeah not really. I'd much sooner take Bill Binney's word for it (the man who invented NSA's data-gathering program, and left because they turned it illegal), and Tom Drake's, J. Kirk Wiebe's, Ed Loomis', and Diane Roarks' (former Congressional aide in charge of NSA oversight) than some pack of paid shills in the Dem Party and MSM.

That group has also stated this and much more on many other venues, not just that blog site. They've even had MSM coverage on PBS, who did a 'Frontline' episode on the spying issue a few years ago, etc. and so on.

If you have trouble reading more that two sentences or with comprehension, that's not my problem.

Wh... why are you mentioning these people who do not seem to have any connection to the Russia investigation? We get it, you have a hateboner for the NSA. That has nothing to do with the current investigation. It seems like you're taking your pet issue into places it has no business being, and didn't even bring a pooper scooper.

Or if I'm wrong, please link the statements where those five people looked over the data concerning the Russia hacks and determined there's nothing to them. Please proceed.