Is Russiagate Really Hillarygate?

[Cthulhu 2020]

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.

Well at least you're open and honest about admitting your blatant bias against groups you're unwilling to believe evidence from simply because you don't like them or the cut of their jib.

[Felya]

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.

I completely agree... the problem? You are asserting contradicting conspiracy theories. The people you claimed were conspiring before are now the same people you claim are being conspired against. What dictates that 2001 Giuliani was conspiring to hide 9/11 and now is a victim of those trying to stop his cabal? What dictates these contradictions other than you? Your comments about Giuliani don't seem make your observation at all objective.

See, you need to say that I have a small mind, while all I am doing is pointing at you inconsistency. Yout know what makes you defend Trump? The fact that you say the whole Russia thing is conspiracy. You can be defensive all you like, but that's a simple fact. You can assess the size of my mind for saying so, but defending something now, is not invalidated by attacking it yesterday. It just makes you inconsistent...

And "Illuminati"? Funny but I've never used that term about Giuliani. Also, I've posted about Tillerson right after he was picked for SoS.

Why the eye roll? You don't like that the multilayered conspiracy you are asserting of some evil cabal got called illuminati? The issue is not the name, but what it represents. You can roll your eyes all you like, but a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

So how about you get your story straight.

What story? Derive my assertions from my replies... go for it... bold it up!

[Caolela]

Holy shit.

It all makes so much sense.

It does for those with the sense to know they've been lied to. It doesn't for those still drinking the MSM kool-aid.

[Felya]

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.

... or British intelligence... or just about any state surrounding Russia. They are all in cahoots... just don't be silly calling them illuminati...

[unfilteredJW]

It does for those with the sense to know they've been lied to. It doesn't for those still drinking the MSM kool-aid.

Not at all what I was referring to, but keep on being woke.

[Felya]

It does for those with the sense to know they've been lied to. It doesn't for those still drinking the MSM kool-aid.

What if you are wrong? What if instead of drinking the kool-aid, someone is appealing to your superiority complex? Notice the 'small mind' comment or the 'inability to read two sentences'. Doesn't that seem a little peculiar?

[Caolela]

I completely agree... the problem? You are asserting contradicting conspiracy theories. The people you claimed were conspiring before are now the same people you claim are being conspired against. What dictates that 2001 Giuliani was conspiring to hide 9/11 and now is a victim of those trying to stop his cabal? What dictates these contradictions other than you? Your comments about Giuliani don't seem make your observation at all objective.

See, you need to say that I have a small mind, while all I am doing is pointing at you inconsistency. Yout know what makes you defend Trump? The fact that you say the whole Russia thing is conspiracy. You can be defensive all you like, but that's a simple fact. You can assess the size of my mind for saying so, but defending something now, is not invalidated by attacking it yesterday. It just makes you inconsistent...



Why the eye roll? You don't like that the multilayered conspiracy you are asserting of some evil cabal got called illuminati? The issue is not the name, but what it represents. You can roll your eyes all you like, but a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.



What story? Derive my assertions from my replies... go for it... bold it up!

Again, you can keep inventing some crap that I'm "defending Trump". What I'm defending is the rule of law, not the mob rule of propaganda spewed in the media where anyone gets convicted in the court of public opinion based on falsehoods - repeated endlessly until some believe it.

I'd say that no matter which side it was. Because it's a very dangerous slope.

We've been warned about the 9/11 topic here and some infractions were handed out. If you persist I'll report it for trolling or discussing forbidden topics. If I can't talk about it, then neither can you.

[unfilteredJW]

What if you are wrong? What if instead of drinking the kool-aid, someone is appealing to your superiority complex? Notice the 'small mind' comment or the 'inability to read two sentences'. Doesn't that seem a little peculiar?

It's common from these folk. It's all about frail world views and a need for a villain.

I rewatched X-Files recently, mainly because of the way a few of these folks present themselves, and I remember how cool it was to think about as a child. Thankfully, I grew up.

[Felya]

Not at all what I was referring to, but keep on being woke.

This is different than woke... you know that saying... what if everyone was jumping off a bridge, would you do it? The obvious answer is no... but, what if the question was... what if everyone wasn't jumping off a bridge, would you do it? The answer should obviously be no. Unless... they are all sheep, that's why you didn't jump off the bridge when first asked, but also why you jumped of the bridge in the second.

One is judging the situation based on its merits, while the other on avoiding following the herd. Not being a lemming, doesn't mean you jump to your doom, because no one else did.

[Caolela]

Wahhhhhhhhhh, I'll take my ball and go home because I have nothing of substance to say. Are you trumpers ever not a victim?

Try again. What I've posted in this thread has more substance based on reality than anyone here. And calling me a Trumper is pretty comical.

[Orbitus]

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

So, your evidence is a fucking blog? That isn't evidence, especially when their sources don't have sources for their fucking claims. But what do you expect from a 9/11 truther?

[Felya]

Again, you can keep inventing some crap that I'm "defending Trump". What I'm defending is the rule of law, not the mob rule of propaganda spewed in the media where anyone gets convicted in the court of public opinion based on falsehoods - repeated endlessly until some believe it.

I'm not inventing anything, you are defending Trump because it aligns with defending the rule of law. Why is that so difficult to accept? Afraid to follow a different herd? Might want to think about my previous post a little bit more...

I'd say that no matter which side it was. Because it's a very dangerous slope.

What dangerous slope? You just accused an unknown government cabal of hiding debris after 9/11. That's not a slippery slope, that's going for the deep end. If that's a slippery slope, what do you consider a full collapse? Alien invasion? Where do you even go from there?

We've been warned about the 9/11 topic here and some infractions were handed out. If you persist I'll report it for trolling or discussing forbidden topics. If I can't talk about it, then neither can you.

I won't report you. No mater what you say or do. I will not report you. I'm not afraid of you...

[Felya]

Try again. What I've posted in this thread has more substance based on reality than anyone here. And calling me a Trumper is pretty comical.

You called people small minded and claimed they couldn't read past two sentences, then threatened me with reporting me to mods. How is that for substance?

[Orbitus]

Try again. What I've posted in this thread has more substance based on reality than anyone here. And calling me a Trumper is pretty comical.

EXCEPT there is no evidence for any of these claims that were made in that fucking blog. That Craig Murray guy was connected with Wikileaks and he said he got the information from a "disgruntled DNC staffer" as a package, yet has no evidence to provide. The only people that took up that story were the Washington Times, a right wing newspaper, and Fox News. He won't provide his evidence. So he can be ignored.

[Caolela]

So, your evidence is a fucking blog? That isn't evidence, especially when their sources don't have sources for their fucking claims. But what do you expect from a 9/11 truther?

You can find any of the above I mentioned on several sites, YouTube interviews, even MSM networks and programs. All of them are consistent and factual, and quite credible.

Sorry about your cognitive dissonance.

[Breccia]

If this washingtonblog is your preferred source of information, that would explain A LOT.

So, your evidence is a fucking blog?

That, and he skips over the part where Trump Jr. flat-out admitted to the meeting and trying to collude with Russia for anti-Clinton intel. So, either he handwaved that, or he doesn't consider Trump Jr. to be credible. Neither helps his Trump rabid fanbase cause.

Oh, yeah, I know he said he wasn't part of Trump's rabid fanbase in a "but her emaaaaaaaaails" post. Didn't help.

[Felya]

You can find any of the above I mentioned on several sites, YouTube interviews, even MSM networks and programs. All of them are consistent and factual, and quite credible.

Sorry about your cognitive dissonance.

I won't report you for insulting him. Figured I let you know...

[Wyrt]

You guys realize you're arguing with a 9/11 truther right?

[Caolela]

That, and he skips over the part where Trump Jr. flat-out admitted to the meeting and trying to collude with Russia for anti-Clinton intel. So, either he handwaved that, or he doesn't consider Trump Jr. to be credible. Neither helps his Trump rabid fanbase cause.

Oh, yeah, I know he said he wasn't part of Trump's rabid fanbase in a "but her emaaaaaaaaails" post. Didn't help.

'Scuse me Breccia but find one post on MMO-C where I've ever supported Trump's policies, before the election or since. I've derided him and his ship of fools as much as anyone.

None of you can seem to get past the fact that this is all just the Dems sour grapes for losing the election when they never should have, nor can they now admit that they have to change a lot in the party to ever get a majority again. But they continue with Republican Lite.

[Edge-]

None of you can seem to get past the fact that this is all just the Dems sour grapes for losing the election when they never should have, nor can they now admit that they have to change a lot in the party to ever get a majority again. But they continue with Republican Lite.

Except that these investigations began before the Russia narrative existed and Democrats or anyone else started picking up on it.

Or is the FBI and the intelligence community just an arm of the DNC, who decided to sit on the story publicly for a long while? Or are we back to time traveling wizard Hillary Clinton?